> For scientists, an ice-free Arctic doesn’t mean there would be zero ice in the water.

> Instead, researchers say the Arctic is ice-free when the ocean has less than 1 million square kilometers (386,000 square miles) of ice

I really really dislike this. This is going to be the next global warming shenanigans where people latch onto the term and are confused, and point to the "falsehood" to discredit the science. It really hurts the message and mission to use such terms.

Give it another catastrophic sounding name that isn't easily twisted to being false.. "artic ice season collapse" or something that doesn't suggest there's no ice... But rather a change in the status quo

When I see articles posted where the title is changed, for example from 'could' to 'will' it almost exposes the bias of the poster and I look at the article from the viewpoint of someone with a bias towards what its saying so almost balance out the view.

Article title is "The Arctic could become ‘ice-free’ within a decade".