Talk:Fixed Wikipedia/Clathrate gun hypothesis

Professor Kennett
I have written to Professor Kennett of UCSB for a summary of the state of the knowledge on this topic. I also wrote to a NCAR researcher to find out if this hypothesis is modelled in the AOGCMs. Simesa 18:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting information
This article states the global warming potential of atmospheric methane as 23 over 100 years; the methane clathrate article states the same potential as 21 over 100 years. Which is more accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.164.155 (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at both the page on Methane and this one and I noticed some dissimilar information on the effects of methane on the greenhouse gas effect. Most notably, the exact figures of the effect of methane. This page does not seem to have a citation for the figures, where as the methane page does. One of these instances cites the half life of methane at 12 years in the atmosphere where as the methane page has values of 9.6 years and 8.4 years, depending on the level of atmosphere. If the 12 year value is correct, could someone please document it? The methane pages also mentions the environmental impact with "Because of this difference in effect and time period, the global warming potential of methane over a 20 year time period is 72." This value is much different than the one on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotowski (talk • contribs) 22:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro / Outlook ambiguity
In its original form, the hypothesis proposed that the "clathrate gun" could cause abrupt runaway warming (A) in a timescale less than a human lifetime, (B) [1] and might be responsible for warming events in and at the end of the last ice age (C). [2] This is now thought unlikely.[3][4]

Which is "now thought unlikely", A, B or C? 67.52.81.242 (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Let us put this way, we hope it won't happen and based on what we think us know today it will not be able to do it. But then there are those evidence that see an accelerating methane in the shallow seas of the arctic, combined with studies that recently questioned our beliefs of the time rate of earlier historical methane releases, instead of placing it between 400-1300 y now think it can happen in a century or two? Myself I expect a cocktail of effects accelerating all temperature raises, and there methane definitely will be included. And there's one thing more, until recently we thought that the main problem with bogs etc would be the methane, but 'experimenting', separating and partially drying a lake in Siberia, it was found that a considerable amount of CO2 will be contributed. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Warming-Tundra-Releases-Carbon-Dioxide-118363.shtml

And if you look at timescales CO2 have an expected tail of influence, at least a millennium long, which makes it our number one priority. As long as methane doesn't accelerate into a giant 'spike' we won't get a tipping from that alone, and its timescale of influence is decades instead of millenniums. But then there is that possible 'spike'? I don't know, I sincerely hope it never will come to that though as .. I'm sure you can figure out why I hope so yourself.

Look up "Methane release from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. by Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov."

Yoron. 178.30.89.241 (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

now thought unlikely

IMO this statement should be removed. Both of the citations for the statement are from 2006. Meanwhile the article cites empirical data from 2008 (Shakhova et. al) that pretty much tells the opposite story. This scenario isn't unlikely as it is already happening at the estimated rate of 0.5 Mt/y! Why does the first intro phrase to "Current Outlook" still read modelling by Archer (2007) suggests the methane forcing should remain a minor component of the overall greenhouse effect.[17] when there is more recent empirical data suggesting something else? Does Archer's model predict the data gathered in 2008? If not it should not be mentioned in such a prominent place - a model that doesn't validate against the present is certainly not predicting the future. Is a climate scientist here to comment on this? I'm a software engineer working in this field (atmospheric simulations), but I don't feel qualified to do a full edit on this article, I just feel it has serious contradictions. If no-one steps forward I will do an attempt anyways however. Muellermichel (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Update needed
The ambiguous statements attributed to Ryskin 2003 appear to be out of date, as does the lead section "however" attributed to BBC 2002. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Likewise regarding the statement that "the existence of vast oceanic methane clathrate formation is uncertain and usually only based on reflective seismology and pieces larger than 10 cm have only been recovered from three sites." The statement references a publication by Jean Laherrere from May, 2000, which was probably correct at the time. I'm pretty sure that in the 12+ years since then, the uncertainty has been substantially reduced. There have even been experimental drilling campaigns by the Japanese to test the feasibility of commercial development. I don't have a reference, offhand, and the article(s?) I recall didn't report a definitive yes / no as to commercial feasibility, but the drilling did achieve some level of production. Agnostic Engineer (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be made more clear that the Ryskin scenario is on very large timescales. The Japanese drilling is not relevant here and it is still a question how feasible that is. Then there is a new study from Kara sea measurements: Offshore permafrost decay and massive seabed methane escape in water depths >20 m at the South Kara Sea shelf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50735/abstract Prokaryotes (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Made the Ryskin part more compact and added Strangelove Ocean, since that is basically the scenario which can also lead to methane release. Though i did not read the paper but Ryskin escribes the same compositon in his paper, just focuses on the methane. I'm not 100% sure but i thought this fits more than just "According to Ryskin.." also, Canfield was later too. Prokaryotes (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hypothesis Killer
Princeton University issued a news release entitled: "On warmer Earth, most of Arctic may remove, not add, methane"; from the article: "new research led by Princeton University researchers and published in The ISME Journal in August suggests that, thanks to methane-hungry bacteria, the majority of Arctic soil might actually be able to absorb methane from the atmosphere rather than release it. Furthermore, that ability seems to become greater as temperatures rise.

The researchers found that Arctic soils containing low carbon content — which make up 87 percent of the soil in permafrost regions globally — not only remove methane from the atmosphere, but also become more efficient as temperatures increase. During a three-year period, a carbon-poor site on Axel Heiberg Island in Canada’s Arctic region consistently took up more methane as the ground temperature rose from 0 to 18 degrees Celsius (32 to 64.4 degrees Fahrenheit). The researchers project that should Arctic temperatures rise by 5 to 15 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years, the methane-absorbing capacity of “carbon-poor” soil could increase by five to 30 times.

The researchers found that this ability stems from an as-yet unknown species of bacteria in carbon-poor Arctic soil that consume methane in the atmosphere. The bacteria are related to a bacterial group known as Upland Soil Cluster Alpha, the dominant methane-consuming bacteria in carbon-poor Arctic soil. The bacteria the researchers studied remove the carbon from methane to produce methanol, a simple alcohol the bacteria process immediately. The carbon is used for growth or respiration, meaning that it either remains in bacterial cells or is released as carbon dioxide."

https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2015/08/14/on-warmer-earth-most-of-arctic-may-remove-not-add-methane-isme-journal/ Frunobulax (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is good news, but notice that it does not really change the situation outlined in this article (clathrates buried in seabeds and permafrost thaw). And if these bacteria release carbon dioxide it still means increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. prokaryotes (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll just leave this here. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Methane Emissions in Arctic Cold Season Higher Than Expected
NASA recently finished a 5 year mission studying this and said the climate models need to change. 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LDWoodworth (talk • contribs) 16:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clathrate gun hypothesis. 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/20081011033742/http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html to http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504113820/http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/default.htm to http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Update needed on shallow Arctic methane clathrates
This section needs an update based on new research through to 2018, they found that the clathrates are stable and the extra methane is seeping from rocks below them and has done so for thousands of years since the rise after the last ice age made the layer more permeable. This basically debunks the clathrate gun hypotheseis. I'll edit the article when I get time or someone else might like to do it. See Arctic methane emissions Robert Walker (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Robertinventor, POV alert. One paper rarely has the import you say it has and in this case, the one paper seems to report sampling at just one area (Svlabard).  It takes review, and confirmation, and persuading many other experts to "debunk" (or prove) a hypothesis.   Other research in 2018 sampling in other places (Shallow water, off Purdhoe Bay) using a new technique confirmed methane release from old clathrates into seawater but also found it was rapidly degraded before outgassing to the atmosphere.  They speculated the degrading agent might be methanotrophs.  Assume they are correct.  Suppose the success of this bio-degradation depends on the aerobic methanotrophs, and suppose further that the aenerobic methanotrophs can't do the job as fast as the aerobic ones.  Then add the gradual de-oxygenation of the oceans, and who knows how this hypothesis plays out in the longterm turnings of the climate system's interlocking wheels? The Svalbard results are interesting, but hardly conclusive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. Should have commented here as an update to say I was going ahead with the edits I'd suggested. Also thanks for the talk page warning that DS sanctions are in place in this topic area, which I didn't know, but it is no surprise. First, I went ahead and edited the article as nobody had replied to my comment. It will be good to have a conversation about the research. Yes I agree on that need to understand how other experts understand the research in the wider context. I just added the USGS metastudy which helps, from 2017 . I haven't yet read it thoroughly as I only found out about it today as a result of this comment in reddit.


 * That looks like a paper we should mention, but need to check the context. The other papers Hong et al (2017) and Wallmann et al (2018) both agreed that there was some clathrate dissociation going on. So is this latest paper confirming them or is it contradicting this?  The paper itself is here, and should be added to the article for sure once we figure out what it is saying and the context. Sparrow et al, 2018


 * There is an interesting quote in the paper which makes the same point you just made:


 * ""In addition to potential changes in the magnitude of in a warmer,increasingly ice-free Arctic Ocean (37), we must also consider that the rate of CH4 removal processes, such as aerobic CH4 oxidation by microorganisms in the water column (6,35), could also change. Thus, to accurately constrain the mobilization of ancient C and the subsequent emission of CH4, we recommend that natural abundance14C-CH4analyses should be conducted in future studies of CH4 dynamics.""


 * As far as I can see, however, they weree not actually investigating the origins of the methane, whether it is due to warming seas or uplift, and whether it is due to the clathrates or deep geothermal gas fields. It doesn't mention Hong et al from June 2017, and is published too soon to mention Wallman et al (published in the same month, January 2018). Sadly the USGS meta study doesn't mention Hong et al either and is published too soon to mention Walman et al. Both of those studies also found some methane from clathrate decomposition, they just said that it has been on going since the last ice age. So I'm not sure, maybe this study just has to have a separate paragraph at the end of the Arctic section for now summarizing what it says?


 * continuing in new section below for another matter I think we need to work on in this articleRobert Walker (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible release events section needs update
You may also have noticed I updated the lede - which is now inconsistent with this section which is out of date and so needs more work: Clathrate gun hypothesis needs work. As you'll see from the USGS metastudy and also the cites which I got from the Wikipedia here Permian–Triassic extinction event then the clathrate hydrates no longer seem to be considered a viable hypothesis for the PETM.

Also Sparrow et al, 2018 look briefly at a more recent anaogue: says

"Although the global atmospheric CH4 inventory is increasing, arctic CH4 growth rates are comparable to or less than the global average (7) and appear to be derived mainly from biogenic sources (2, 8, 9). Ancient C stores, including arctic permafrost and hydrates, were recently determined to have contributed 19% of the CH4 released to the atmosphere during the Younger Dryas – Preboreal abrupt warming event (10), an analog to climate change today."

The paper they cite is here, Petrenko et al, 2017 (ScienceDaily also covered this paper. )

""To the extent that the characteristics of the most recent deglaciation and the Younger Dryas–Preboreal warming are comparable to those of the current anthropogenic warming, our measurements suggest that large future atmospheric releases of methane from old carbon sources are unlikely to occur.""

We should also mention the IPCC review of methane clathrate research from 2017

""Clathrates: Some economic assessments continue to emphasise the potential damage from very strong and rapid methane hydrate release (Hope and Schaefer, 2016), although AR5 did not consider this likely. Recent measurements of methane fluxes from the Siberian Shelf Seas (Thornton et al., 2016) are much lower than those inferred previously (Shakhova et al., 2014). A range of other studies have suggested a much smaller influence of clathrate release on the Arctic atmosphere than had been suggested (Berchet et al., 2016; Myhre et al., 2016). New modelling work confirms (Kretschmer et al., 2015) that the Arctic is the region where methane release from clathrates is likely to be most important in the next century, but still estimates methane release to the water column to be negligible compared to anthropogenic releases to the atmosphere. A recent review (Ruppel and Kessler, 2017) emphasises that there remains little evidence that clathrate methane is reaching the atmosphere at present. Although methane that is oxidised in the water column will not reach the atmosphere, it will have the effect of further lowering the pH of the ocean (Boudreau et al., 2015). A recent modelling study joined earlier papers in assigning a relatively limited role to dissociation of methane hydrates as a climate feedback (Mestdagh et al., 2017). Methane concentrations are rising globally, raising interesting questions (see section on methane) about what the cause is (Nisbet et al., 2016; Rigby et al., 2017; Schaefer et al., 2016; Turner et al., 2017). finally new measurements of the 14C content of methane across the warming out of the last glacial period (Petrenko et al., 2017) show that the release of old carbon reservoirs (including methane hydrates) played only a small role in the methane concentration increase that occurred then""

Robert Walker (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time fitting this whole whale into my oven, but I'll see what I can do as weather forces me indoors over the next weeks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Isn't it just! Fine take your time :). The USGS metastudy particularly is vast - and many of the cites are from 2017 - I think it is fair to say that much of this new research - which according to the USGS and IPCC has just about conclusively disproved the clathrate gun hypotehsis both for the present and for past warming events like the PETM - dates back to the last couple of years, 2017 and 2018. And my, the researchers have been busy! From the USGS article then if we were to be as thorough as them this article would be vast and run to many pages so I think we don't need to summarize more than the main lines of research - unless there is some expert here who wants to go into details maybe in more specialist articles expanding on particular topics.


 * I'll be reading some of this material also, when I get time and may do more updates of the article. I think the Clathrate gun hypothesis section needs an update soon to match the updated material at the end of the lede, so may do that in the next day or two, a short summary of the main points. And can add a short summary of the paper you found somewhere probably end of the Arctic section, will see.  I think it should mention the IPCC summary too so will add that into the current outlook section when I get a moment or two to work on it some more. Robert Walker (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the CGH theory is misleading since it suggest that it suddenly begins and then it just keeps going in a very short time frame, but there is still the possibility for sub-sea landslides happening synchronous to ice-sheet disintegration events, and uptake of seismicity, which eventually could free hydrates sealed by sub-sea permafrost, and ofc just sub-sea permafrost degradation, ie in the ESAS region. Vladimir Romanovsky calls it a wildcard, as of 2017. Then we have the accelerated chronic source from terrestrial thawing permafrost, the current heatwave in the Arctic Circle (Skandinavia), also important to account for, when looking at future projections. The SWIPA 2017 report just states, but unclear if they also refer to clathrates as a Arctic sink/source (sediment formation) "Reductions in sea ice and other changes may affect the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the Arctic Ocean, while thawing permafrost is expected to increase emissions of methane. However, projections of future impacts on Arctic sources and sinks of greenhouse gases are still hampered by data and knowledge gaps."
 * CAGE also good infos, ie. WHETHER WARM OR COLD, METHANE KEEPS LEAKING IN THE ARCTIC, and Gas hydrate dissociation off Svalbard induced by isostatic rebound rather than global warming prokaryotes (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What is misleading is bad writing (whether its here or somewhere else) that fails to explain issues related to greenhouse gases in something of a venn diagram fashion. As we all know here, methane is just one of the GHGs (but readers are confused about this).  I can hear it now, "C4... isn't that carbon dioxide?"   Once the reader undstands there are different compounds in natural sinks/sources, and the reader focuses on methane, there are many different processes to talk about.   Our writing is best done if we explain this clearly and in a well-organized manner.   Clathrate destabilization due to landslides might release methane alright, but it isn't exactly the mechaism contemplated by the clathrate gun hypothesis.  We need text that organizes all that into the appropriate articles without cramming off topic exceptions and parallels under the same roof. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes - and the thing that made the original CGH alarming is the size of the reservoir that could suddenly be released in the runaway feedback effect where the warming lead to more methane released. The other things such as the subsea and land permafrost can impact on global warming too, but in the articles I've read on the topic, projections so far are significantly smaller than the total global warming effects due to humans, so are more like details - adjusting the projections by a fraction of a degree or some such.

If there isn't enough of a reservoir then you can only have so much feedback effect, mainly just increased due to the global warming from CO2 rather than the methane itself. Also because methane is so short lived in the atmosphere, then even if you have a large reservoir, it still has to be released quickly as well to cause a runaway. With the clathrates there is a large enough reservoir but with the new research, as I understand, the consensus emerging is that it isn't released fast enough for a runaway. Just saying, maybe that needs to be explained to the reader in a little more detail to give it context. As for the subsea and land permafrost then though it's not due to clathrates, it is still relevant to the article I think, maybe it can have a section about whether there can be a runaway methane emission from other causes - and even also the idea of a runaway CO2 effect like Venus and explaining that there aren't enough fossil fuels even if they are all burnt for that to happen, there's the moist greenhouse effect to, which is outcome of a partial CO2 runaway not possible now but could happen a hundred million years in the future in one article I read - don't want to overwhelm the article, more like a short section on related ideas at the end, linking to other articles here on those topics, may be a good idea. I don't have time to read the cites right now, but hope to come back to it soon. Robert Walker (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe titled something like "Other potential climate change runaway effects" and then briefly go into the other methane sources and how they aren't large enough for a runaway, or like the clathrates, are released too slowly for a runaway - and then the CO2 runaway hypothesis which briefly was thought to be theoretically possible if we burn all the fossil fuels, but soon disproved. Robert Walker (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

That would also help with potential confusion of CH4 and CO2 runaways. Robert Walker (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is way down in the weeds of WP:FORUM and I'm not sure it's entirely accurate, however I'm not interested in further FORUM discussion of the general topic of methane cylcing. If P and I halt our contributions to the general chatting we can actually study the sources you've already found, Robert. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry in what sense is it WP:FORUM? Because I didn't give the cites? I can do that, they are WP:RS, published in Nature. This is the Moist Greenhouse paper . These are the papers showing that a runaway CO2 greenhouse from burning all the fossil fuels is impossible and summary in National Geographic There he says it doesn't take account of clouds, this is the later 2016 paper taking account of clouds: And there are papers on the permafrost etc and on how much of a reservoir there is, comparing it to the effects of CO2 from human activities and I think it is a useful comparison to make for the reader. All of my comment was entirely to do with a suggestion to help improve the presentation of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert, I reveiwed the complaints when you ran into trouble a few years ago. "Wall of text" was a frequent complaint.  This thread is already long and is drifting into a general discussion of each editors impression and understanding of arctic carbon.   The only thing we should be talking about is how to improve this article about the clathrate gun hypothesis based on reliable sources.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PS Bubbling up in our tree-like structure of articles, these other things might go in Runaway climate change or perhaps there is a sub-article below that one and above this one where the various polar mechanisms could be elaborated.  See also Climate change feedback.  The only thing we should say about the broader carbon cycle and the other possible mechanisms in this article is that the CGH relates to one of the many ways in which greenhouse gases could possibly enter the atmosphere from natural carbon sinks, and provide wikilinks so the reader can find the articles about the others. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

All I can say about my topic ban is that broadly construed means that I am not permitted to comment on or even hint at anything to do with the topic or anything that lead to my indef topic ban on Buddhism. About the only thing I am permitted to say is that I am Buddhist, and if asked what that means I can't answer that either. Can I ask you kindly to not discuss it futher here with other editors, as I am not permitted to respond.

Please though decide for yourself whether I am doing a wall of text here, rather than rely on what others said about me in an unrelated discussion, in an unrelated topic area. I am involved in many other editing areas and with one other exception, which I can talk about, I have never been accused of walls of text in any other topic on Wikipedia, even when both myself and the other editor write multiple pages of content. This is because what I write is always directly relevant to improving the article. See for instance these long discussions on microtonal music with another editor with equally long responses and you can see how my responses are appreciated by them and vice versa Talk:Regular diatonic tuning. That is with the exception of Life on Mars and Planetary Protection. If you look further back then you will find discussions I can talk about related to the topic of habitability of present day Mars. There was a great fracas about that during which I was accused of walls of text and trolling, which you can find if you search back in my history - but do bear in mind - the final outcome after one of the opposing editors who was opposing my content on Wikipedia left for a six month sabbatical was that I wrote the articles Modern Mars habitability and Present day Mars habitability analogue environments on Earth which were so obviously good and well researched that nobody has suggested they should be deleted - they give an idea of the quality of my work on Wikipedia, even though I had had opposition for several years from an editor who prevented me from adding any material on these topics to the encyclopedia. They have only had minor edits by wikignomes - I am the sole author. And I wrote half of the article Planetary protection and nearly all of Interplanetary contamination after the fuss died down about my attempt to add extra material on these topics.

If we already have too much material to discuss, without going into this idea of an extra section for the article to help clarify the connection with other runaways and with CO2 feedback, then that's fine by me. It was just a suggestion. In case it wasn't clear I was responding to this part of what you said:

""What is misleading is bad writing (whether its here or somewhere else) that fails to explain issues related to greenhouse gases in something of a venn diagram fashion. As we all know here, methane is just one of the GHGs (but readers are confused about this). I can hear it now, "C4... isn't that carbon dioxide?" Once the reader undstands there are different compounds in natural sinks/sources, and the reader focuses on methane, there are many different processes to talk about.""

This suggestion of an extra section, which I sketched out in my response, was an idea of how to help with that. But we can leave it for future discussion! Got plenty of other things to do :). Robert Walker (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

On your second comment, yes I can work on those articles, if I have time. I haven't checked, I'd have thought they would cover these topics. Perhaps the suggestion wasn't clear? I didn't mean a new section going into that in detail. I meant a short section that just explains the basic idea of a runaway and why the clathrates are not a runaway if the emissions are small compared to other effects - and a one or two sentence mention of other methane sources and a brief explanation of why they are not considered to be capable of a runaway either (unless of course any are but I don't think they are) and of the CO2 runaway hypothesis and why that also is now discounted - the whole thing just one short para with interwiki links to find out more. I think this would add to clarity of this article. Robert Walker (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * in this edit you made several factual errors. Please be more careful when adding new content. prokaryotes (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry I don't understand, why did you remove the intro "However, later research cast doubt on this picture."? The Phys.org article has the title "Study finds hydrate gun hypothesis unlikely" and the lead scientist himself puts it like this as reported by Phys.org:


 * ""Short-term temperature warming has limited impact on the gas hydrate stability. We show that warming can significantly affect gas hydrates in the seabed only when ocean temperature is constantly rising for several centuries,""


 * The rewritten text seems to miss what the lead scientist himself considers to be the most important point of their study. And why remove "large mounds of hydrates" which is how it is reported in Phys.org? Or Storfjordrenna? That is in both the paper and the Phys.org article. And why did you remove "Well beyond the onset of warming"? Again that is how the paper is summarized by Hong himself.


 * ""The increase of methane flux started several hundreds to thousands of years ago, which is well before any onset of warming in the Arctic Ocean that others have speculated,""


 * In short I don't understand why the text needed to be changed at all, what specifically in it was inaccurate? And - given the choice of using the description of his own research by the lead author in his own words and an attempt to summarize it myself, I'll go for what the lead author says, so long as it is consistent and doesn't clash with what the paper says and is not obviously a mistake or misreported. Robert Walker (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Errors you made in the edit: 1.8 C instead of -1.8, seabed is warming instead of the water at the seabed, you stated current rapid release, but there is no current rapid release. Then you wrote, "However, later research cast doubt on this picture", this is misleading (even if a headline suggests otherwise), since they only identified natural seepage, did not rule out the theory specifically - even if they did, it doesn't nullify all previous studies, you would write they concluded that CGH is unlikely or something along that way. The revised text still concludes that it wasn't due to warming. This study is specifically on Svalbard, doesn't necessarily means it same for ie. ESAS region, or elsewhere. I've added more on Svalbard bottom water warming in the continental slope section. prokaryotes (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The difficulty with such edits is, you have to begin check fact every single tidbit, essentially skim the entire study, which can become frustrating. prokaryotes (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind - easier to read if not indented too far.


 * 1.8 C instead of -1.8 - that's a mistake agreed. The Phys.org article got it wrong and I copied it from them. Well spotted.
 * temperature of the sea bed / at the sea bed - actually more accurate would be temperature of the gas hydrates
 * "However, later research cast doubt on this picture - they did cast doubt on the theory. Though it was only one spot, the theory if valid should have applied to the clathrates they studied and did not. They proved that the seepage had been going on  from several hundreds to thousands of years ago, so was not due to the recent warming, which the Clathrate gun hypothesis supposes. Moreover the seepage came from below, from deep reservoirs. Both of those cast doubt on the hypothesis. After all the hypothesis is not that some clathrates are destabilized, but that all or nearly all the clathrates are supposed to be destabilized. If a reasonably typical clathrate deposit is not destabilizing as the theory predicts, not at all, only a meter or two, and destabilizing over centuries - this casts doubt on the hypothesis. While if they had found out that it was destabilizing as predicted then this would begin to confirm the hypothesis. After all - they have no proof from anywhere else that it started recently in the papers I saw. I'd suggest the sentence I used was an accurate summary of what they did. What they said they did, for sure, but also what they actually did. You could however say "However, later researchers say that their findings cast doubt on this picture if you want to make it an opinion of the researchers rather than an opinion "of wikipedia". Robert Walker (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert, don't use sites like Phys.org to make a point, stick to the actual study paper, quote from there please. And read the previous paragraph on the page from the USSG statements etc. It is very unlikely that it all happens at once around the globe, and indeed nobody claims this, it would start with single pulses, which could "maybe" lead to more pulses elsewhere - that's the scenario in a nutshell. prokaryotes (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that Phys.org was potentially unreliable and will go back to the original press release where possible in future. As I said below, the Phys.org is actually taken from a source on CAGE itself, the original is here ,


 * Anyway - said this below but worth summarizing I think. I found another blog post there by one of the research scientists talking about his own paper published March 2018. They now say that according to their models the seepage started 2 million of years ago, the methane forming since the late Miocene 6 million years ago - and the "methane flares occurred at the seafloor for the first time at around 2 million years ago; at the exact time when ice sheets started to expand in the Arctic". This seems to be a new result, and it is a blog post from one of their researchers just two months ago in june. It is significant since it means that it has been doing this all the way through the ice ages. Although they are talking about Svalbard there is no reason why it wouldn't be the same for the rest of the Arctic.


 * The thing is that the fluctuations of the sea temperatures warm the top 1.67 meters of the sea floor when the sea is warm. But below that, the temperatures are only a little above 2 C which is nowhere near high enough for the clathrates to destabilize. And the upper layers are only slightly destabilizing, the summer temperatures do not seem to have enough effect for long enough for significant amounts to destabilize. So their studies and models do not back up the clathrate gun hypothesis. And the original hypothesis was not based on detailed studies like this. When the USGS says that "we suggest that conclusive evidence for release of hydrate-related methane to the atmosphere is lacking.” - they mean that so far nobody has been able to turn up the evidence needed to support their hypothesis. Basically it is a hypothesis not yet supported by evidence. At one point the methane seeps seemed to be evidence, now they are not. At one point analysis of the PETM seemed to be evidence, now it is not. So - there is basically at present no reason to accept it as something that could happen as far as I can see.


 * Hope that's a bit clearer. The result of all this recent research still falls short of conclusively disproving it perhaps - but they have not found any evidence to support it yet, I think is a fair summary, and one lead after another has turned up blank that would be expected to turn up something if the hypothesis was correct. Robert Walker (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Major rewrite of article under discretionary sanctions without discussion on the talk page first
I see you have made many other changes throughout the article including a major rewrite of the lede, generally in the direction of making the clathrate gun hypothesis seem more plausible as an ongoing still viable theory. I don't have time to discuss such major chagnes right now.

I know what it can be like on Wikipedia with these discussions and I don't have enough time on my hands to go through this and especially not in an area where I have been advised there are discretionary sanctions, which means that emotions run high, and can even mean that someone might unexpectedly take you to WP:ANI mid conversation unexpectedly, and that I most definitely do not have time for. I mean not suggesting you would, but someone might, if feelings run high..

I thought I was just doing simple fixing of an article that was a bit out of date, and didn't include the latest research. This is the type of work I prefer in Wikipedia and I have no stomach for controversial areas, nowadays, especially not after various bad past experiences here.

But if I can make a couple of suggestions, I think the lede should cite the USGS and IPCC surveys if you are going to cite that 2018 one, especially because they are not behind paywalls and are highly regarded too. We cite articles that the readers can check for themselves where possible and as they are from 2017 they are hardly out of date.

And I don't know why you removed the material from the lede about how scientists used to think the PETM warming was due to clathrates decomposition and that this was later disproved. Indeed you have dealt with this matter of the "Possible release events" section by just deleting the entire section, and all mention of connection with past events. I think it is of great interest to the reader to know that this hypothesis has been disproved. Because it casts significant doubt on whether it could happen today if it didn't happen in the PETM or in the Lower Dryas temperature excursion. Meanwhile in articles and blog posts off wiki they will read that it happened in the PETM and will come here assuming that and will read an article that does not disabuse them of this now out of date idea..

Normally when editors plan such substantial changes to an article then they discuss it on the tal pages first. I did that before my edits. The only reason I went ahead and edited it was because no-one replied. Then when nobody responded to my edits either - I went on and continued to edit it as an apparently dormant article that nobody was much interested in. If I had thought there was interest from other editors I'd have discussed it all here first. It was because nobody responded so I did as is advised to "be bold" and do the edit anyway.

I never do substantial or possibly controversial edits before discussing them on the talk page first. Not in all the time I've been on Wikipedia. That is just not how I do things. For instance with the habitability of Mars and the Planetary protection issues, I discussed all my edits on talk pages first, went ahead and did them, worked on them for some months - and they were there for some time before someone came along and decided to remove the material from wikipedia. When that happened I then tried to resolve the issue on the talk pages. That is how I operate.

Especially here - there's the risk of emotions running high, of someone deciding to take you to WP:ANI, and also, that when an article is so much in flux then in my experience probably this means it is going to flip flop between different versions of the text and be edited and re-edited for possibly a long time - and I haven't the time to work through that right now.

But I have found this discussion so far rather useful, and I hope you have too. I might write my own article based on all this off wiki, on Quora or my science blog, to help clarify ideas and then maybe can come back here at a later date once the ideas are clearer here and see if I can help with whatever form it is in by then. Just not now when it is in such flux.

But good luck with the article and I hope you get some clarity here! I may come back a bit later and see what has happened. Robert Walker (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No re-write, only added the General section which was part of the lede ealier (for the most parts). Added a review conclusion to the lede which appears to be authoritative. In regards of what else you state, my overall impression is that you offer too much of your short term impressions/opinions, which are not needed, which are actually for other readers a little bit confusing. I write this in good faith to point out something to you, because my overall impression is still that your contributions are in good faith, and that your real intentions are to improve Wikipedia. prokaryotes (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You removed all the material on PETM. That is a significant change. Many other changes. Adding that 2018 survey to the lede and ignoring the USGS and IPCC ones. The abstract doesn't even mention clathrates and we haven't discussed it here yet. For a small article those are major rewrites. If it was dormant, fine, but when there are three editors actively discussing it right now, the impression is that you are not interested in what our views are on the matter. Perhaps you don't realize how major a rewrite it is doing lots of small changes one at a time? Here is a diff for all your changes: diff. Yes of course my intention is to improve Wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The normal thing in a situation like this would be to roll back your changes and ask you to discuss them first but I don't have the stomach for that. Robert Walker (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No Robert, I only removed your addition of the carbonate burned during a time not related to the PETM, the PETM stuff is still there, in the general section. prokaryotes (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh my apologies! Not to excuse it but for understanding - it's maybe partly because of previous bad experiences here on Wikipedia. I over-reacted. I see that your edit was mainly moving things about rather than removing them. The sections that I thought were just gone were moved somewhere else.

It is clearly mid edit and you may have more changes you want to do and the USGS cite especially is vast - no way I have time to read it in detail at the present, just read some sections especially relevant to the clathrate gun hypothesis and their overview "press release" style page. I expect probably you haven't either yet, just because it is so long, and a very technical paper, and a new cite here. I strongly recommend reading it. Seems to be the best most authoritative work there is out there on this topic and essential background reading. And the other articles are also rather technical and most can probably do with a re-read. It is easy to make mistakes - even Phys.org did when they wrote 1.8 C instead of -1.8 C and they are generaly a reasonable WP;RS. Just a mistake on their part and we can make mistakes too.


 * Did you mean to move the Wallman research into the continental slopes section. I thought it was examining the same hydrates as the Hong ones. Off Svalbard. It's somewhat deeper at 400 meters just going by your summary of its content.

I think though that I should leave further comment until whatever time you feel you have read the cites we've been discussing, integrated them into you rewrite, and feel happy with the article. Then do post here and say your rewrite is done. Then I can comment on it. I am very happy to let someone else do the work of the rewrite, so long as it is part of a conversation and we are working on the article together rather than just taken into their heads to do a major rewrite without discussing it first, as happens here on Wikipedia sometimes - I first encountered that with the Mars / Habitability where one editor just went around Wikipedia removing all the content in all the articles anything to do with planetary protection, and another editor removed all material anything to do with the present day habitability of Mars. The motivation is a little unclear but the one removing the planetary protection article was quite specific he said he was sick of seeing sections in the articles on concerns about forward contamination of Mars by microbes brought there by human colonists. So he had a pro-colonization political motivation for removing this material. Eventually he deleted nearly all of the main planetary protection article. It was quite shocking, for a weeks Wikipedia had almost no material on this topic. Since then I have been able to restore just about all the material that was deleted and in much improved form too with many cites. Anyway I was a bit worried you were acting like him, sorry!

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just one point, "Phys.org Research pair suggest global warming almost completely natural" prokaryotes (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh interesting. I have found Phys.org pretty good - I mean - they are science journalists, but - they often quote the scientists themselves and generally I find them accurate. But looks like we should trace the story further back.


 * I've found the original press release that the other articles on this topic are based on and it should be used in place of the Phys.org source. It is here


 * Interestingly it also puts it as 1.8 C instead of -1.8 C as the minimum temperature. Could the paper itself be mistaken on this? I find -1.8 C a bit implausible as the sea rarely goes below 0 C except at the surface and this is a depth of 400 meters - does it really get that cold that deep even at Svalbard?
 * It looks like a good source on this topic. Here is a recent blog post there by one of their researchers - seems they have moved forward a fair bit in the Svalbard research, they now know that the methane there has been escaping at the same rate for millions of years!


 * "Recent observations of extensive methane release from the seafloor into the ocean and atmosphere cause concern as to whether increasing air temperatures across the Arctic are causing rapid melting of natural methane hydrates. Other studies, however, indicate that methane flares released in the Arctic today were created by processes that began way back in time – during the last Ice Age."


 * "Newest research from the Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment (CAGE) shows that methane has been leaking in the Arctic for millions of years, independent of warm or cold climate. Methane has been forming in organic carbon rich sediments below the leakage spots off the coast of western Svalbard for a period of about 6 million years (since the late Miocene). According to our models, methane flares occurred at the seafloor for the first time at around 2 million years ago; at the exact time when ice sheets started to expand in the Arctic."


 * "The acceleration of leakage occurred when the ice sheets were big enough to erode and deliver huge amounts of sediments towards the continental slope. Methane leakage was promoted due to formation of natural gas in organic-rich sediments under heavy loads of glacial sediments. Faults and fractures opened within the Earth’s crust as a consequence of growth and decay of the massive ice masses. This brought up the gases from deeper sediments higher up towards the seafloor. These gases then fueled the gas hydrate system off the Svalbard coast for the past 2 million years. It is, to this day, controlling the leakage of methane from the seabed."


 * Robert Walker (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the article essentially already states that, maybe ref improve. prokaryotes (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Hong summary just said hundreds to thousands of years. This is saying the seepage started 2 million of years according to their models, the methane forming since the late Miocene 6 million years ago - and the "methane flares occurred at the seafloor for the first time at around 2 million years ago; at the exact time when ice sheets started to expand in the Arctic". This seems to be a new result, and it is a blog post from one of their researchers just two months ago in june. It is significant since it means that it has been doing this all the way through the ice ages. The source is here, published March 2018, - I think we should give both blog post and source when the blogger is the lead researcher, like this. And note - they are talking about the whole Arctic here, not Svalbard. They clearly are confident that their results are for the Arctic as a whole. Robert Walker (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On the temperatures, the -1.8 C for the sea bed is correct. The author of the blog post on the CAGE website is a science journalist rather than a researcher, she is listed as a communications advisor on their website, writes for Science Nordic. She must have just got it wrong. It is the winter temperature of the sea at the sea bed. figure 6. But their temperature fluctuation plots show that the temperature fluctuations in the ocean only get high enough to destabilize the clathrates even occasinoally, down to 1.65 meters below the sea floor, area shown in blue in this plot. The rest of the clathrates at depth remain at a little over 2 C year round, not high enough to destabilize.


 * Incidentally, it would be a good figure to include in the article, helps explain the reason for the 1.65 meters really clearly in visual form, but I don't know what the situation is about whether one can get permission to include figures from Nature articles in Wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know when you have finished your revisions
Just to make it clear, as you didn't respond, do say when your revision is complete,. Because I made a number of specific criticisms in our last conversation that have not been addressed. Rather than dive in and edit it and possibly end up in an edit war, I think it has to be discussed on the talk page first.

Once it is finished do let me know and I will do a bulleted list of the main things I think need to be fixed, or at least, discussed, and then we can come to some kind of resolution and mutual agreement / understanding on what the reliable sources are saying. Or if there are differences in views in the literature, then to make sure all the views are expressed in the article. In several key points I think the current article doesn't express what the literature says quite yet.

I will read the USGS overview article first and re-read some of the cites here before commenting on your final version of the article. I'm going to do that anyway when I find time. Do take your time, and spend as much time as you need on your rewrite, but I'd like to know when it is finished. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am done editing for now. I don't understand your mention of an edit war, since I corrected the errors you introduced, and that's why I have responded here to you. One last point, while general seepage studies are interesting, I think they would better fit into the methane hydrate article, or maybe into climate change in the Arctic. Ofc, if a study mentions CHG specifically it belongs here, this can also be more broadly construed if there is mention of rapid climate change due to hydrates dissociation. prokaryotes (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue of an edit war is just that you rewrote a lot of the material I added without asking me first and I am not totally on board with all the edits you did. You did fix some things, especially the -1.8 C for 1.8 C, thanks, well spotted. But there are many other points where you seem to have introduced errors rather than fixed anything.


 * I tried discussing them but you haven't reverted the errors in your rewrites that I brought up. This makes me reluctant to edit the article myself without first making sure that you are on board with how I want to do it. I.e. no edit war at present but if I was to go in and "fix" the things you changed that I don't think need to be changed,turning them back to the original text, then it is headed towards edit war territory.


 * I will do a few bullet points of the main things. There are other points too, but let's start with these, and see how the discussion goes. I will make a new section for this: Robert Walker (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of the main points for attention

 * I think the lede should briefly mention the PETM and that it is no longer thought to be due to the clathrate gun as so many readers will think it was, it is a significant part of the article.
 * The lede ends with a summary that is based on material in an article that is behind a paywall. Are you basing this just on the abstract? If so then I do not think your paraphrase there is supported by the abstract which does not mention clathrates. If it is from the actual content, please talk to us about what the article says and quote from it, bearing in mind we can't read it, so we can assess that statement. In a situation like that. I think it is good practice to have an actual quote from the article in a footnote, since the reader of the article can't verify it.
 * It seems POV to select only one of the review articles for the final sentence of the lede, especially to not cite the USGS which is very thorough and high reliability, and the IPCC which is also thorough (quoted above).
 * The IPCC summary is not yet included in the article and I think we should add it, I think add the clathrates section quote after the USGS quote (see above, remove the cites of course and we can just include some of the key sentences with ... in between). This might do:
 * ""Clathrates: Some economic assessments continue to emphasise the potential damage from very strong and rapid methane hydrate release, although AR5 did not consider this likely. Recent measurements of methane fluxes from the Siberian Shelf Seas are much lower than those inferred previously. A range of other studies have suggested a much smaller influence of clathrate release on the Arctic atmosphere than had been suggested. …. A recent modelling study joined earlier papers in assigning a relatively limited role to dissociation of methane hydrates as a climate feedback. Methane concentrations are rising globally, raising interesting questions (see section on methane) about what the cause is, finally new measurements of the 14C content of methane across the warming out of the last glacial period show that the release of old carbon reservoirs (including methane hydrates) played only a small role in the methane concentration increase that occurred then.""


 * Wallmann et al seems to be in the wrong section as it is discussing the same clathrates as the Hong et al article - and the Hong et al is clearly about the deep sea clathrates. It is a matter of terminology - where do you draw the line? But it seems these count as the sea bed rather than the continental slopes and typical of the Arctic clathrates, amongst the most vulnerable of them.
 * This summary seems inaccurate, at least I can't find it in the paper: "The study, also found that today's deposits at the site become unstable at a depth of ~ 400 meters, due to seasonal bottom water warming, and it remains unclear if this is due to natural variability or anthropogenic warming" - the paper itself says Hence, we propose that hydrate dissociation was triggered by postglacial isostatic rebound rather than anthropogenic warming. And the paper rules out antrhopogenic warming:
 * ""Our analysis of sediment cores of Western Svalbard unambiguously confirms that retreat of the Barents Sea ice sheet led to offshore gas hydrate dissociation, a process that has been widely speculated upon from modeling and geological observations3, 5, 38,39,40,41 but up until now, has remained unproven. Furthermore, combined modeling and geochemical analysis reveals that methane hydrates at the up-dip limit of the hydrate stability zone decomposed via postglacial isostatic rebound in contrast to previous hypotheses that invoke anthropogenic bottom water warming7, 9. Our data and model results also show that gas hydrates are not in themselves a significant source for gas release at the seabed. Rather, they act as a dynamic seal that blocks fluid-flow pathways for gas migration from deep geological reservoirs.""


 * My previous version of this paragraph explains this, while the current version does not. You can find it here towards the end of the section. I suggest roll back to the previous version and then discuss what needs to be fixed, if anything.

Robert Walker (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hong et al - affects the clathrates to a depth of ∼1.65 meters (minor edit, text release rounds to 1.6 but original says ~1.65).
 * "at the sediment-water interface" is confusing. The article says "proximal to the sediment-water interface" which is not quite the same in meaning. It is the top 1.65 meters of the sea bed below the sea floor, see figure 6
 * Please restore "Well beyond the onset of warming". That is how the paper is summarized by Hong himself.
 * Need somehow to indicate that Hong see their research as evidence against the CGH. The actual text in the release on the CAGE site is "A new study in Nature Communications has thus found that the hydrate gun hypothesis seems increasingly unlikely, at least for a specific site in the Arctic Ocean that is highly susceptible to warming." so you could just paraphrase that, but in some way have to indicate that they see it as contributory evidence against CGH,
 * Need to add the new research, according to which the methane deposits formed in the late Miocene starting 6 million years ago, and the methane leaks have been going on for two million years through multiple ice ages.


 * - pinging you as a reminder. We can start by discussing the article behind a paywall. It is $32 for access.


 * Per WP:OFFLINE then ''"Use of the quote= parameter within those citation templates provides some context for the reference. This is especially important when using the off-line source to support a fact that might be controversial or is likely to be challenged"'


 * I think we can agree that
 * "A 2018 published review concluded that the clathrate gun hypothesis remains controversial, but that better understanding is vital
 * counts as "likely to be challenged" since it conflicts with the IPCC statement
 * "A recent modelling study joined earlier papers in assigning a relatively limited role to dissociation of methane hydrates as a climate feedback"
 * Bearing in mind the other issues I've listed in these points needing attention where you seem to have paraphrased the source incorrectly, I'd like to check what the original says in this case. And discuss whether the IPCC summary should be mentioned in the lede as well, or in its place. It seems WP:POV to me to not mention the IPCC study in the lede or indeed anywhere in the article. The only IPCC cite is from 2014, four years ago, and much has changed since then. Take your time about answering. I'm not trying to rush you, just a gentle reminder if you haven't seen this for some reason, or have forgotten about it. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Most studies are behind a paywall, the edit summary for that edit you question, cites a page displaying the quote. Science study page paywalls not a reason for exclusion. If you want to mention PETM in the lede, add something about it briefly? But I would keep most of it in the general section. prokaryotes (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:LEADSECTION. The lead must be a summary of the body of the article. If it isn't in the body of the article, it shouldn't be in the lead. In practice, there are frequent exceptions for short and stub articles, but this is neither. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * My proposal is to add the IPCC quote to the body of the article, which is way out of date with only their 2014 report, and then to add a brief summary in the lede. Similarly for the USGS report. They are both very highly reputable sources and if this other study deserves to be paraphrased in the lede, and differs from what they say, then the range of POV's on the matter needs to be presented in the lede.


 * I do not see any page number or quote in your cite. Yes of course per WP:OFFLINE then offline sources and sources behind paywalls are absolutely fine in Wikipedia. But it also says there that it is especially important to include a quote from the cite when using it to support a fact that might be controversial or is likely to be challenged. So - I have challenged it - just in the sense that I have concerns the paraphrase may be inaccurate. Can you please supply a quote?


 * Okay I can add a brief mention of PETM to the lede. And what about the other points? If you haven't commented on them - does that mean you are okay with me doing the suggested edits? Many are minor but still, you rewrote material I added before, without discussion first, and I don't want to do edits that revert your edits if you are going to re-revert what I add. I prefer to sort such matters out on the talk page. E.g. on the Wallmann et al cite which I think needs to be returned to the Arctic section and reverted to my original version of the paraphrase to fix several inaccuracies that crept in during your rewrite.


 * Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll review and edit as there is time and interest, about all I can say. Follow Wiki rules and do as you will. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay - I will do some edits when I get some time. Starting with most significant - to add a mention of PETM to the lede, the IPCC quote to the Arctic section and a summary of it to the end of the lede. And then can continue from there, depending on any responses here. I.e. to do the edits but a few at a time, rather than do them all at once in case of any controversy arising, to avoid confusion. There is no hurry and I have a lot on, so I'll do this in a day or two. Robert Walker (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)