¶ … Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts" by Andrew C. Revkin, printed in the New York Times on October 2, 2007. Its focus lies on the Arctic ice cap -- particularly, on the rapidly decreasing amount of floating ice there. It reports that during the summer of 2007, the amount of floating ice melted to "an extent unparalleled in a century or more," and that upon discovering this information, scientists were "unnerved." The article cites a study that found that during that summer, ice had not only melted but moved -- out of the Arctic basin and past Greenland. It reports that the rate at which the ice melted was far more than any scientist or report had previously speculated, but that there exists between scientists disagreement about the true cause for this event. Still, the article says, many of those scientists believe that the Arctic "is heading toward a new, more watery state, and that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role." It goes on to say that experts have so far not been able to locate records from Russia, Alaska, or elsewhere that point to a decrease in melt at such a high rate as that of the summer of 2007, and that scientists are becoming increasingly convinced that the Arctic's changing climate is directly related to human influence. The focus of the article shifts to describe how the situation is beneficial to shipping, fishing and oil exploration, but how it is detrimental to the fate of polar bears. It lists a number of scientists' views on the potential for the ice melt to be reversed; all of them say they believe there is essentially no chance of that happening. It then lists a number of factors that may have also influenced the ice melt: heat-trapping clouds, the "ocean-heating influence of unusually sunny skies in June and July," warm winds, and a decrease of thick ice, which can endure months of higher temperatures and sunshine. What was left was thin ice, which in turn absorbed the solar energy that thick ice normally would, but melted faster.

The article concludes with a number of quotes...

Corell, published in Ambio in June, 2006. I do not believe this article was used in the previously discussed New York Times piece. However, both are topically similar.
The article introduces its subject with an overview of the climate situation in the Arctic. It claims that the Arctic is experiencing climate change more intensely than most other areas. It cites thawing of permafrost, melting of glaciers and melting of sea ice as evidence for Arctic warming. It reports that changes in the Arctic will possibly have the following negative consequences: changes in global climate, sea level rise and "devastating effects" on polar bears, seals, and the people who rely on these animals for food. Conversely, climate change in the Arctic will possibly lead to less ice, which, as the New York Times piece states, will "increase access to the region's marine resources, expanding opportunities for shipping and possibly offshore oil extraction." However, the article says, these if these possibilities are realized, there will be possible increases in environmental damages brought on by such activities. The article goes on to list more possible impacts of climate change on the Arctic, and closes the introduction by saying that people need to be more aware of what is happening.

The body of the essay is composed of a number of subheadings, all dedicated to potential implications of climate change as related to the Arctic region. It warns of these implications: substantial decreases in snow and ice cover, leading to even warmer temperatures, the shifting of arctic vegetation zones to cause further warming as the result of a decrease in snow and ice reflection and in increase in heat uptake by…