![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
WP:SOAPBOXing; no suggestion or question.
|
---|
Rather than be concerned only with global averages, there are issues with worse case situations. Polar warming of up to 10 degrees C has reduced the Arctic sea ice to about 13 million square miles. Both the Arctic and the Antarctic are warming at rates which are increasing at an increasing rate. In addition to thinning due to warming temperatures, oceanic currents containing salt water has found routes in underneath them. The melting has been increasing the rate at which glaciers calve from a linear to an exponential rate. Jacobshaven now flows at 6 feet per hour moving its calving face back from the sea at about 10 miles per year exposing a deep trench in the land leading to the sea. As sea level rises coastal cities are flooded all around the globe. Most of the largest cities on the planet were established to provide trade routes access to river deltas centuries ago and thus have many or most of their transportation, utilities and infrastructure at or below sea level. Airports, seaports, subways, railroads, highways, tunnels, bridges, agricultural lands and especially underground utilities; water, sewer, storm drains, gas, electric, phone lines and access to them floods regularly already. More than 100 cities with populations over 100,000 are in danger of not being able to function on just the US east and Gulf coasts. Globally crops are dependent on aquifers that are becoming too saline for them to grow. Fish populations are being displaced by the warming. Coastal Nuclear and water treatment plants are very difficult to service once they go underwater and flood. Methane releases from the Arctic and Siberia over the next decade will double the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and continue to cause more permafrost to melt. The IPCC has moved up its next scheduled report two years because its looking like the tropics will be uninhabitable sooner than was projected in 2014. 24.93.139.28 ( talk) 13:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC) |
Any objection to adding a culture section? Following the recent death of visionary author Ursula LeGuin, I was reminded of Always Coming Home, which I am sure is one of many imaginings of how humans will learn to live with these sea rises. Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 18:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
<<housekeeping note... This 2018 discussion "incorporates by reference" the one from 2015 so to begin I imported that one here. This way, it's all in one place. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 07:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<<
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that Future sea level be merged into sea level rise. I think that the content of Future sea level article can easily be explained in the context of sea level rise, i.e. in the Projections section. prokaryotes ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Current article name | Resulting article name | Content |
---|---|---|
Sea level | Sea level | analogous to our article climate change |
Sea level rise | Current sea level rise | analogous to our article global warming |
Future sea level | merge the real meat to projections section of current SLR |
But I don't have time to work on it. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Human impact Should there be a section with human impact of rising seas? I would say no, and only dedicate this article to the level the future sea would have, and therefore provide links to more appropriate articles ( sea level rise and effects of global warming on humans).. Femkemilene ( talk) 19:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I propose a different solution - just combine three hugely overlapped and redundant articles. WP:ARTICLESIZE says in part
Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:
Readable prose size What to do
> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division
Here are the three articles I suggest we combine. Readable prose just pasting them together produces 66 kb, but we would slash that after removing redundancies.
Article | Markup Size | Readable Prose | HatnoteText |
---|---|---|---|
Sea level | 18kb | 12 kb | For other uses of "Sea level", see Sea level (disambiguation) |
Sea level rise | 104kb | 42 kb | This article is about the current and future rise in sea level associated with global warming. For sea level changes in Earth's history, see Past sea level. For predictions, see Future sea level |
Future sea level | 24 kb | 12 kb | This article is about the future projections in the rise of sea levels associated with global warming. For recent changes in sea levels, see sea level rise. For a general article on the topic, see sea level. |
In addition to clearing up the text, it would greatly reduce the maintenence work if we purge the overlap and redundancy. Big job. What do you think? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
<<housekeeping note... Merge was also discussed at the other page. That thread was imported and hatted above. These two sections should be read together NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 07:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<< The same proposal as in 2015, same arguments. Should future sea level be merged into this article in analogy with the difference sea level/global warming? I am willing to do the merging if we have enough support for a merge. This time it should be easier, because I've removed vast parts of the article future sea level, that were outdated/irrelevant. Femkemilene ( talk) 12:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Sea level rise is not globally uniform. In addition to the coefficient of warming things like subsidence, isostatic rebound, and ocean currents slowing are factors. The Gulf Stream's slowing is causing sea levels to rise in New England. Such deviations from the norm are worth a mention. More importantly temperatures are rising much faster in the arctic. Methane is being released much faster and in much greater quantities than are discussed here. The polar ice melt is increasing at an increasing at an increasing rate and the ice melt is ponding below the ice cap. 24.93.139.28 ( talk) 08:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Still the same problem as before. In the lead, instead of actually saying what the tidal gauges estimate as the current rate of sea level rise, it i gives several loose estimates on what someone believes it might be if co2 based catastrophic global warming predictions come true. How about we stick to actual measurements? Sea level rise is about 1.75 mm per year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.12.180 ( talk • contribs)
P and F
This NASA chart represents the satellite bi-monthly data on sea level since 1993, in millimeters, adjusted for seasonal variation. [1] [2]
References
User:Trurle recently improved the article by tackling the mark-up. One of the changes was putting back a figure that User:prokaryotes had recently removed because of redundancy. I think it was a good idea to have that figure removed, because it took up a lot of space without giving that much information. What are your reasons for putting it back? Femkemilene ( talk) 07:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The figure (or to be exact, bar plot) has additional functionality compared to NASA standard graphical plot:
1) The user can read numerical values with 0.1mm precision directly from the bar plot, giving much more detailed feel of short-term changes
2) Seasonal effects are removed (NASA had that data in referenced FTP dataset, but did not publish it in graphical form)
3) The bar plot allows to aggregate data from different publishers with no latency (not used currently, but NASA/NOAA had problems keeping their of observation satellites continuously operational, therefore it can change in future)
Trurle (
talk)
08:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I plan to finish the physical part first as that is literature I'm most familiar with. One of the major changes to the effects and adaptation section I want to make, is removing the focus in the U.S. (I assume there is some policy for that, but can't find it via Google). User:Prokaryotes: awesome that you're adding stuff, but do keep in mind that the world is bigger than the US. I suspect we'll find Bangladesh mentioned twice as much as US in international sources about the effects of sea level rise. To what extent is it okay to add French, German, Dutch and Spanish sources if I can't find good English sources? I do suspect most of the adaptation literature is produced by governments. With those languages I will be able to cover a big part of the world. Femkemilene ( talk) 20:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
At some point I'd like to nominate this article for the Good article category. I realize we still have some ground to cover. I read that the US "human dimension" units (feet/inches, is there a proper name for that?) should then be used as well as the customary/scientific units as meters. Couple of questions and remarks
Questions: How do you convert mm to inches? Is a statement as 0.01 inches insightful? Or is there some smaller unit? Are mm used in the US? In the NOAA page yearly sea level rise is stated in mm/year.
Remark: Reading a text with a lot of numbers is very boring. I've been trying to remove specific numbers whenever they were irrelevant (mostly when there were numbers of <10 years of sea level, or specific locations or a way to detailed comparison of two measuring methods). Considering we'll have to convert a lot of those numbers making the text even more boring, shall we keep with a less technical description of the topic? People can always read the technical reports if they want more details. If there are important numbers, we can always put them in a graph. Femkemilene ( talk) 09:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed NASA hasn't updated their 1993-present sat graph since April, more current graph available here via CSIRO http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_decades.html Wait a little or switch to the CSIRO flavor? Copyright: "Figures marked "CSIRO", are copyright CSIRO, but please feel free to use them, conditional on the figures not being altered, and their source being acknowledged, and with a link to this site where possible." prokaryotes ( talk) 03:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM includes "land water storage" in the list of main contributors. The range of its impact overlaps melting of Greenland ice sheet; overlaps melting of glaciers; and overlaps melting of antarctic ice sheet. Seems like it should be included. Careful readers will see that the low end of its range is lower than any of the others, so an argument could be made for "main" causes being the ones whose ranges start at a higher value. But with the overlap in the ranges I think that's a dubious peg on which to hang ones hat. Land water storage should be included, at least briefly. But wait, I take it back. The above was based on section B. Later in Section D at page 17, the SPM explicitly says thermal expansion and melting are the larges contributors. Rather than delete my comment I left it in case I forget and make this mistake again.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
12:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Just noting a primary RS on a nuance for followup later Under-estimated wave contribution to coastal sea-level rise NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we should mention, "The Antarctic Peninsula is among the most rapidly warming areas of the planet, with temperatures having increased by almost 3C over the last 50 years." ... Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth prokaryotes ( talk) 15:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The introduction now puts both the IPCC and the NOAA numbers next to each other. This implies they two organisations are talking about the same thing, but vastly disagree. This apparent disagreement is amplified by the sentence that modelling sea level rise is difficult. As you might be aware of, the IPCC uses a 66% confidence interval, and the NOAA uses different probabilistic projections in the literature to determine some extreme scenario. The sources they use give an approximate 1% chance for these extreme scenarios. Not entirely sure how to write properly, but this might be interpreted wrong by many readers. Femkemilene ( talk) 16:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
For a start, see the discussion at IPCC AR5 WG1 Tech Summary pages 98-99 (as printed on the page). Their projections are (stated range) but then they say (paraphrased) "plus maybe more due to ice sheet instability". Any statement of the range that omits the "plus maybe more" is an incomplete statement of their projection. Its a bit frustrating (as many PRIMARY sources can be) because they seem to say (A) there's no consensus about the 'maybe more' factors and then (B) they seem to quantify a range and likelihood despite the supposed lack of consensus. If I weren't hungry for lunch and hot from labor maybe I would have perceived the nuance. But that's what hunting secondary RSs is for. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
In
this edit JFG removed text asserting a certain RS asserted a rise began about 150 years ago. My preliminary comments are - (A) since there is no SECONDARY source coverage of the PRIMARY source cited, use of this PRIMARY source is dubious. (B) So far I have no opinion whether the reverted text was useful.
Reason for my comment is that I disagree with JFG's reason for the revert. The edit sum reads "Nothing in cited source asserts a new trend since 1850: sea level has remained mostly stable "from 6.7 ka to recent time". What the devil do geologists mean when they use the phrase "recent time"? That's a rhetorical question. We all know that to understand geo-nerds you need a hint of the order of magnitude they're thinking about in any given context. Here, 1850 is indeed "recent" because the abstract does allude to a new trend starting in about 1850. Here is the
cited source. The source "significance" paragraph (before the abstract) says
and the abstract says
Since they note the "recent rise" that started in 1850, they have told us how to understand the bit quoted in the edit summary. The RS does indeed say a new trend started about 150 years ago, so the text should be restored if it makes a better article. I haven't focused on this seciton yet and so have not yet formed an opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I will leave it to you to change it for now :). Might help later, but my partner has woken up. Femkemilene ( talk) 07:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
(e/c) Earlier today Prokaryotes added a new section titled "definition". I found this rather incomprehensible after a quick reading and the wikilink to the broad topic of geomorphology is an EGG. The new text I removed read
Let's see if we can craft some comprehensible 5th grade level English here on talk before restoring this section. See WP:NOTJARGON paragraphs 7 and 8. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding a recent change to a citation in the "Satellites" section: The original citation was bad, but removing mention of AVISO and Climate Reanalyzer (here
here), leaving the text attributed solely and directly to Dr. Hansen, is wrong. The
actual source is a blog (
https://robertscribbler.com) of unknown authorship, which says: "Sea level rise analysis and update based on information provided by AVISO, Climate Reanalyzer, and the work of Dr. James Hansen.
" Where specific claims are made the original source should always be cited. This blog might be informed, might be accurate, but is not a reliable source, and citing it misattributes the source of the supposed fact. Remediation requires findng the original, authoritative source; it can probably be found in one of the IPCC reports. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
17:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
but only with care". Specifically, a primary source may be used "
to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
in 2010-2018 was 4.6 millimetres per year". This is, clearly and definitely, a straightforward, descriptive statement of an alleged fact, that can be verified given access to the correct, and original, source. Which is now attributed to Dr. Hansen, but without any identification of where. Note that from this blog actually cited we have only a statement by this anonymous "robertscribbler.com" which is ambiguously (amtriguously?) attributed to Hansen, "Aviso", and "Climate Reanalyzer", with absolutely no information on any of those sources. Removing (as here) any mention of these latter two alleged sources makes it harder to find the original source of this alleged statement. It is also an inherent interpretation (perhaps even OR?) that Hansen is the actual source. As it currently stands, the material can attributed only to "robertscribbler.com", who does not qualify as a reliable source.
generally unacceptable" (per WP:USERG; see also WP:BLOGS). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I propose we keep numbers in the contribution section to a minimum and instead have an informative box-plot with the following information:
There are a few reasons for this
Specifically for the contributions section I'd like to propose there to be a rough indication of the magnitude of all contributions in the first paragraph (percentages are good, thanks User:Prokaryotes, but no/barely any mention in the subsection. This information would instead be captured in a graph based on the IPCC values. If you agree, could you help doing this? I really shouldn't be spending my work hours on Wikipedia now. I'll put the code for the figure up on Github, so that with the September 2019 IPCC report, it can be updated easily. Femkemilene ( talk) 08:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The formulation of "according to at least one study in 2017' is problematic. Is it held true or not? What do secondary sources say? Either you trust a study (because you use the paper as a secondary source or other secondary sources have used this study) and you leave out the 'according to', or you don't trust it and don't include it in Wikipedia. Femkemilene ( talk) 10:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
For now, I removed Prokaryotes text "and this trend could further destabilize the main ice-sheet" because after reading both references (the primary source and the HuffPo column) I can not find text that links the trend now underway on the "peripheral glaciers and ice caps" with destabilization of the main ice sheet. Fun (to me) side note, I posted some speculative OR many years ago in online forum(s) wondering if we would see faster runoff when the firn fills and refreezes. Now when I do some more OR, I agree if the peripheral glaciers and ice caps go away that might - in my opinion - contribute to destabilization of the main ice sheet. I can certainly understand why you might think that way too P. HOWEVER, maybe I missed the text in these RSs that connects these dots. Below please quote the specific sentence or two you think makes this connection from these sources? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone object if I combine the archives for the various years into just one page? For example, I already combined the multiple archive pages for 2006 into just one. Most of them had just one or two short threads. This effort is intended as a prelude to tuning up the auto archive feature so it mimics the way we do it at Talk:Global warming, except we can still archive here at 180 days, compared to just 21 over there. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Work in progress NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@JFG: you just changed the size of the figures in the article. I assume that absolute sized figures lead to problems on different devices?? Is there a way to make the figures somewhat bigger without using absolute sizes? Some of the figures would definitely benefit from being somewhat bigger. Femkemilene ( talk) 10:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Prokaryotes: you recently added information about the marine ice cliff instability, which I believe is important. The previous paragraph is about the marine ice sheet instability, which I believe is better established. I think mentioning the slopes of the cliff is confusing, as this is not part of the ice cliff instability, but instead the mechanims behind the ice sheet instability. Could you correct your grammar + write an explanation that does not confuse the two processes? Here a paper explaining both: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05003-z. Femkemilene ( talk) 09:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Shall we try to keep a consistent citation style in this article? I have a preference for not mentioning names in the main text (Baker et al (2001) said X), but using the superscript style instead because (a) names are not sources of information people come looking for and therefore make it more difficult to read actual content (b) Names imply, to me at least, that the statement is dependent on the opinion of the author. With good reliable sources, this shouldn't really be the case. If if it too controversial, better not mention it except when it's extremely important. (c) Names are already mentioned in the reference section. Femkemilene ( talk) 11:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
mentioning names in the main text".
abstract fine points of citation in general" (as NAEG puts it); I was addressing (with a concrete example, no less) specific comments which bear on the actual work you are doing.
at the end of the article" (per JFG). But I have a feeling that may not be precisely what these guys really have in mind. JFG also says "
not Harvard", but ambiguity runs rampant: does he mean not Harvard style referencing? Or not Harv templates? The problem is that many, many WP editors confound these two. "Harv" templates are for creating short-cites, and avoid the short-comings of named-refs (and the abominable {{ rp}}).
Harv anything"? Is there such hatred of Harvard referencing style that it carries over to anything remotely connected with it? The "Harv" family of templates are the best way we have of doing short cites, and needs not get any closer to "Harvard" style than that. So would you feel any better about using short cites if the templates had a different name? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Recap I think we have agreed we will use the drop-down citation templates (or their close cousins that are not in the dropdown menu) in a straightforward way, and call it a day. If that's true, can we please close this thread? If it's not true can someone please state the proposal or question in twenty words or less? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
|access-date=
I just reverted this edit which added this text
There are multiple issues here. The most important issue has to do with the 1 inch/year number. The cited sources have their own links, so I dug and found the original study, "Spatial and temporal variability of sea level rise hot spots over the eastern United States". The first problem is that this text implies seas are going up an inch per year and will stay like that. In reality, the sources are talking about temporary "hot spots" that appear along different parts of the coast. The study says they haven't been sure why, and these scientists think El Nino' drives most of the rise and the Atlantic oscillation mostly determines where that rise shows up along the coast. A news tease say this runs in contrast to the prior speculation that it was tied to climate change and slowing thermohalince circulation. That's also what this ScienceDaily news story says. Another big problem is reporting beach erosion rates but not mentioning the complex factors including - as the sources say - that beach outlines and sandbars are always migrating. Overall, coastal impacts and regional variation is indeed something we need to carefully explain. But this paragraph needs substantial work. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
References
In this edit Femkemilene added some nicely explained text about sediments and mangroves. Of the three RSs, this one is paywalled, and from the abstract page it isn't clear that this article really encompasses sediments and mangroves, as opposed to sediments and other habitats. So I couldn't verify this part of the paragraph. (The rest is great, thanks.) F, when you have the chance, could you please ensure that the RS I linked here really supports the text you added? For context, please review the English Wikipedia's understanding of WP:SYNTH. We want to make sure we don't do that. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 07:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Article talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
These models assume ice melt is linear when in fact ice melt is exponential. Ice melt is a complicated subject but fundamentally it melts away from the heat sources which are primarily on top and bottom so the ice thins. Heat transfer through ice is not instantaneous so you get surface melt. You basically have the same surface area exposed to the heat sources so less and less ice has to absorb the same amount of heat. The ice that is remaining is absorbing more latent heat needing less and less additional heat to make it melt and that is exponential. If you're not familiar with an exponential curve you win the Lottery. They give you the choice of 3 million dollars in hand or a penny the first day two pennies the next doubling it each day for 30 days (exponential), which one would you choose? Where are we in an exponential curve? The data would suggest we're right where the exponential curve start heading to the stratosphere. James B MacDonald — Preceding unsigned comment added by James B MacDonald ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC) James Brian MacDonald 15:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC) |
User:Distelfinck just removed some information about hard and soft adaptation strategies, because apparently there is a more common definition of hard and soft. I'm willing to believe I made a mistake here; I'm not an expert in the nonphysical side of sea level rise. Having come across the term multiple times, I do think it is important to include the correct definition in the article though. What other definitions are around and which sources support that different definition?
(For reference, the text that was removed: These adaptation options can be further divided into hard and soft. Hard adaptation relies mostly on capital-intensive human-built infrastructure and involves large-scale changes to human societies and ecological systems. Because of its large scale, it is often not flexible. Soft adaptation involves strengthening natural defenses and adaptation strategies in local communities and the use of simple and modular technology, which can be locally owned. The two types of adaptation might be complementary or mutually exclusive. The building of a dike (hard adaptation) for instance destroys the natural dune system and dune nourishment will not be possible anymore. [1] [2]). Femkemilene ( talk) 21:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
References
The beginning of the lead establishes cm as the dominant unit, at least below 1000 cm.
So there are two problems with the sentence below:
For example, in 2007 the high end of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections through 2099 was less than 2 feet (0.61 m), but in their 2014 report the high end was considered to be about 3 feet (0.91 m).
The first is that it's disruptive to be switching here into feet (though perhaps this is to honour the source, which in any case I would regard as actually more of a disservice to the reader than benefit to the source) and the second is that the metric units should be glossed (if they must be glossed) in cm to remain consistent with the previous metric units introduced, rather than meters.
The IPCC is a body of the United Nations. Maybe they put out one version of the report in Imperial units for a certain affluent, but proudly ostracized audience, though surely metric is their own native unit internally, and primary unit in most of their publications. — MaxEnt 18:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the article is almost ready for a good article nomination. Here a list of the criteria, and what I think we should still do before nominating the article.
Femkemilene ( talk) 08:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
References
@ Femkemilene: Thanks for all your hard work. I have improved the prose to clarify some facts for lay readers, especially in the lede section that suffered from inconsistencies in units. I have also added some citation needed tags in locations where they are missing. Even if it may sound obvious that coastal cities are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, every statement in the article should be backed by RS. I'd be happy to help with further copyediting towards GA approval. — JFG talk 23:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
There was a section on extreme slr events, which I think should be re-added because it appears significant if larger parts of ice sheets begin to disintegrate, or there are more similar events. See the section here. prokaryotes ( talk) 17:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued work here, Femkemilene. In an edit summary you wronte science of SLR progresses fast; estimates done in 2010/2011 not relevant. There is an aspect that I've always believed to be highly relevant.... plotting old projections over time. When you drill down into the details of old projections, a story unfolds of (A) how we learned some things while learning that we did not know things (the so-called "known unknowns"), (B) as the known-unknowns become quantified the projections consistently go up, and (C) ... this might be redundant.... but over time the big reports with updates projections seem to keep going up. So the old projections aren't entirely meaningless. Just to be clear, I'm not objecting to your recent deletion of some of the old projections. Just saying that the data underlying the deleted text is useful in other ways and we should be open to using it in another context. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The lead section is not bad but does not meet Wikipedia requirements. MOS:LEADELEMENTS It should be short and precise about what the subject is and is not. The title should be included in Bold type. Rlsheehan ( talk) 19:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The MOS says:"If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". That is easily accomplished and was done so in wording up to 24 August.
That wording seems simple and clear. Readers know what the article is about. I suggest we go back to that wording or something similar. Rlsheehan ( talk) 20:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the banner. Not saying the lede is now perfect and suggestions for improvements are of course still welcome. At the moment it does summarize the article and satisfies all requirements. Femkemilene ( talk) 18:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The first reference in the lead is a) from 1997, b) is behind a paywall, and c) the abstract makes no mention of the statement being made in the article. I am uncomfortable with the use of the word "about" in the lead's first para (twice) when referring to measurements. It is ambiguous as to whether "about" means the measurements are uncertain, differ between ensembles or has been rounded. I am just flagging this because I read the first para, and thought: "wait, what?". I am happy to go looking for a set of free access supporting references (rather than just one) for some of the lead's claims ... but I'm still a very new editor. I have experience at the tertiary education level, but am still learning WP's guidelines and rules. By all means, stop me if I'm going down the wrong track here. Thanks to all, commenters here in talk and those who've worked on this article to date. Prime Lemur ( talk) 13:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
(continuation from previous discussion, that went off track)
Weren't projections linear at one time? I thought IPCC said something like SLR by 2100=59cm extending a linear trend of past observations of mostly thermal expanison..... but subject to dynamical ice sheet changes which we can't include due to lack of understanding.... that was the 2000 or 2007 report, I think. Am I remember that right? Kind of related.... if we don't have a gripping way to show how projections have changed over time that might be a high impact graphic waiting to be created NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@P. You want us to mention that newer models better capture trends. So far the introductions mentions a general new models are better. The model section mentions: "This type of modelling was partially motivated by the fact that in previous IPCC assessments most physical models underestimated the amount of sea level rise compared to observations of the 20th century". Do you want it to be more specific? If so, what concrete changes do you want? Femkemilene ( talk) 08:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@NEAG. I'm afraid that if you string together a lot of old estimates, you automatically make a narrative of climate scientist are too conservative, maybe even implying that these estimates could go further up. If there is a reference explaining this in the context of SLR, I'm okay with dedicating a line to that. Femkemilene ( talk) 08:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hurricanehink ( talk · contribs) 19:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this important article. I got up to the end of "Sea level measurement".
Will finish later. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Subsidence, isostatic rebound, gravitational effects of changing ice masses, and spatially varying patterns of warming lead to differences in sea level change around the globe,[83] including regions with sea level fall (near current and former glaciers and ice sheets). - that is too much for one sentence. Warm up your readers with an introduction to the subject matter you're about to introduce, not throw in everything but the kitchen sink! If this entire section is about Greenland, then you should say as such, and put the last sentence of that paragraph first. Done
That's my review. There is a lot here, but a lot of it is number formatting. It could be doable within a week. I'll leave it open until February 2, next Saturday. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Why remove the word sophisticated? And why use outdated source (IPCC 2013) here when IPCC 1.5 report also talks about these models, and how drastically they have changed? Femkemilene ( talk) 13:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Whatever happened to comprehensible WP:NOTJOURNAL secondary sources? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
WP:SOAPBOXing; no suggestion or question.
|
---|
Rather than be concerned only with global averages, there are issues with worse case situations. Polar warming of up to 10 degrees C has reduced the Arctic sea ice to about 13 million square miles. Both the Arctic and the Antarctic are warming at rates which are increasing at an increasing rate. In addition to thinning due to warming temperatures, oceanic currents containing salt water has found routes in underneath them. The melting has been increasing the rate at which glaciers calve from a linear to an exponential rate. Jacobshaven now flows at 6 feet per hour moving its calving face back from the sea at about 10 miles per year exposing a deep trench in the land leading to the sea. As sea level rises coastal cities are flooded all around the globe. Most of the largest cities on the planet were established to provide trade routes access to river deltas centuries ago and thus have many or most of their transportation, utilities and infrastructure at or below sea level. Airports, seaports, subways, railroads, highways, tunnels, bridges, agricultural lands and especially underground utilities; water, sewer, storm drains, gas, electric, phone lines and access to them floods regularly already. More than 100 cities with populations over 100,000 are in danger of not being able to function on just the US east and Gulf coasts. Globally crops are dependent on aquifers that are becoming too saline for them to grow. Fish populations are being displaced by the warming. Coastal Nuclear and water treatment plants are very difficult to service once they go underwater and flood. Methane releases from the Arctic and Siberia over the next decade will double the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and continue to cause more permafrost to melt. The IPCC has moved up its next scheduled report two years because its looking like the tropics will be uninhabitable sooner than was projected in 2014. 24.93.139.28 ( talk) 13:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC) |
Any objection to adding a culture section? Following the recent death of visionary author Ursula LeGuin, I was reminded of Always Coming Home, which I am sure is one of many imaginings of how humans will learn to live with these sea rises. Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 18:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
<<housekeeping note... This 2018 discussion "incorporates by reference" the one from 2015 so to begin I imported that one here. This way, it's all in one place. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 07:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<<
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that Future sea level be merged into sea level rise. I think that the content of Future sea level article can easily be explained in the context of sea level rise, i.e. in the Projections section. prokaryotes ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Current article name | Resulting article name | Content |
---|---|---|
Sea level | Sea level | analogous to our article climate change |
Sea level rise | Current sea level rise | analogous to our article global warming |
Future sea level | merge the real meat to projections section of current SLR |
But I don't have time to work on it. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Human impact Should there be a section with human impact of rising seas? I would say no, and only dedicate this article to the level the future sea would have, and therefore provide links to more appropriate articles ( sea level rise and effects of global warming on humans).. Femkemilene ( talk) 19:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I propose a different solution - just combine three hugely overlapped and redundant articles. WP:ARTICLESIZE says in part
Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:
Readable prose size What to do
> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division
Here are the three articles I suggest we combine. Readable prose just pasting them together produces 66 kb, but we would slash that after removing redundancies.
Article | Markup Size | Readable Prose | HatnoteText |
---|---|---|---|
Sea level | 18kb | 12 kb | For other uses of "Sea level", see Sea level (disambiguation) |
Sea level rise | 104kb | 42 kb | This article is about the current and future rise in sea level associated with global warming. For sea level changes in Earth's history, see Past sea level. For predictions, see Future sea level |
Future sea level | 24 kb | 12 kb | This article is about the future projections in the rise of sea levels associated with global warming. For recent changes in sea levels, see sea level rise. For a general article on the topic, see sea level. |
In addition to clearing up the text, it would greatly reduce the maintenence work if we purge the overlap and redundancy. Big job. What do you think? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
<<housekeeping note... Merge was also discussed at the other page. That thread was imported and hatted above. These two sections should be read together NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 07:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<< The same proposal as in 2015, same arguments. Should future sea level be merged into this article in analogy with the difference sea level/global warming? I am willing to do the merging if we have enough support for a merge. This time it should be easier, because I've removed vast parts of the article future sea level, that were outdated/irrelevant. Femkemilene ( talk) 12:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Sea level rise is not globally uniform. In addition to the coefficient of warming things like subsidence, isostatic rebound, and ocean currents slowing are factors. The Gulf Stream's slowing is causing sea levels to rise in New England. Such deviations from the norm are worth a mention. More importantly temperatures are rising much faster in the arctic. Methane is being released much faster and in much greater quantities than are discussed here. The polar ice melt is increasing at an increasing at an increasing rate and the ice melt is ponding below the ice cap. 24.93.139.28 ( talk) 08:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Still the same problem as before. In the lead, instead of actually saying what the tidal gauges estimate as the current rate of sea level rise, it i gives several loose estimates on what someone believes it might be if co2 based catastrophic global warming predictions come true. How about we stick to actual measurements? Sea level rise is about 1.75 mm per year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.12.180 ( talk • contribs)
P and F
This NASA chart represents the satellite bi-monthly data on sea level since 1993, in millimeters, adjusted for seasonal variation. [1] [2]
References
User:Trurle recently improved the article by tackling the mark-up. One of the changes was putting back a figure that User:prokaryotes had recently removed because of redundancy. I think it was a good idea to have that figure removed, because it took up a lot of space without giving that much information. What are your reasons for putting it back? Femkemilene ( talk) 07:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The figure (or to be exact, bar plot) has additional functionality compared to NASA standard graphical plot:
1) The user can read numerical values with 0.1mm precision directly from the bar plot, giving much more detailed feel of short-term changes
2) Seasonal effects are removed (NASA had that data in referenced FTP dataset, but did not publish it in graphical form)
3) The bar plot allows to aggregate data from different publishers with no latency (not used currently, but NASA/NOAA had problems keeping their of observation satellites continuously operational, therefore it can change in future)
Trurle (
talk)
08:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I plan to finish the physical part first as that is literature I'm most familiar with. One of the major changes to the effects and adaptation section I want to make, is removing the focus in the U.S. (I assume there is some policy for that, but can't find it via Google). User:Prokaryotes: awesome that you're adding stuff, but do keep in mind that the world is bigger than the US. I suspect we'll find Bangladesh mentioned twice as much as US in international sources about the effects of sea level rise. To what extent is it okay to add French, German, Dutch and Spanish sources if I can't find good English sources? I do suspect most of the adaptation literature is produced by governments. With those languages I will be able to cover a big part of the world. Femkemilene ( talk) 20:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
At some point I'd like to nominate this article for the Good article category. I realize we still have some ground to cover. I read that the US "human dimension" units (feet/inches, is there a proper name for that?) should then be used as well as the customary/scientific units as meters. Couple of questions and remarks
Questions: How do you convert mm to inches? Is a statement as 0.01 inches insightful? Or is there some smaller unit? Are mm used in the US? In the NOAA page yearly sea level rise is stated in mm/year.
Remark: Reading a text with a lot of numbers is very boring. I've been trying to remove specific numbers whenever they were irrelevant (mostly when there were numbers of <10 years of sea level, or specific locations or a way to detailed comparison of two measuring methods). Considering we'll have to convert a lot of those numbers making the text even more boring, shall we keep with a less technical description of the topic? People can always read the technical reports if they want more details. If there are important numbers, we can always put them in a graph. Femkemilene ( talk) 09:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed NASA hasn't updated their 1993-present sat graph since April, more current graph available here via CSIRO http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_decades.html Wait a little or switch to the CSIRO flavor? Copyright: "Figures marked "CSIRO", are copyright CSIRO, but please feel free to use them, conditional on the figures not being altered, and their source being acknowledged, and with a link to this site where possible." prokaryotes ( talk) 03:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM includes "land water storage" in the list of main contributors. The range of its impact overlaps melting of Greenland ice sheet; overlaps melting of glaciers; and overlaps melting of antarctic ice sheet. Seems like it should be included. Careful readers will see that the low end of its range is lower than any of the others, so an argument could be made for "main" causes being the ones whose ranges start at a higher value. But with the overlap in the ranges I think that's a dubious peg on which to hang ones hat. Land water storage should be included, at least briefly. But wait, I take it back. The above was based on section B. Later in Section D at page 17, the SPM explicitly says thermal expansion and melting are the larges contributors. Rather than delete my comment I left it in case I forget and make this mistake again.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
12:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Just noting a primary RS on a nuance for followup later Under-estimated wave contribution to coastal sea-level rise NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we should mention, "The Antarctic Peninsula is among the most rapidly warming areas of the planet, with temperatures having increased by almost 3C over the last 50 years." ... Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth prokaryotes ( talk) 15:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The introduction now puts both the IPCC and the NOAA numbers next to each other. This implies they two organisations are talking about the same thing, but vastly disagree. This apparent disagreement is amplified by the sentence that modelling sea level rise is difficult. As you might be aware of, the IPCC uses a 66% confidence interval, and the NOAA uses different probabilistic projections in the literature to determine some extreme scenario. The sources they use give an approximate 1% chance for these extreme scenarios. Not entirely sure how to write properly, but this might be interpreted wrong by many readers. Femkemilene ( talk) 16:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
For a start, see the discussion at IPCC AR5 WG1 Tech Summary pages 98-99 (as printed on the page). Their projections are (stated range) but then they say (paraphrased) "plus maybe more due to ice sheet instability". Any statement of the range that omits the "plus maybe more" is an incomplete statement of their projection. Its a bit frustrating (as many PRIMARY sources can be) because they seem to say (A) there's no consensus about the 'maybe more' factors and then (B) they seem to quantify a range and likelihood despite the supposed lack of consensus. If I weren't hungry for lunch and hot from labor maybe I would have perceived the nuance. But that's what hunting secondary RSs is for. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
In
this edit JFG removed text asserting a certain RS asserted a rise began about 150 years ago. My preliminary comments are - (A) since there is no SECONDARY source coverage of the PRIMARY source cited, use of this PRIMARY source is dubious. (B) So far I have no opinion whether the reverted text was useful.
Reason for my comment is that I disagree with JFG's reason for the revert. The edit sum reads "Nothing in cited source asserts a new trend since 1850: sea level has remained mostly stable "from 6.7 ka to recent time". What the devil do geologists mean when they use the phrase "recent time"? That's a rhetorical question. We all know that to understand geo-nerds you need a hint of the order of magnitude they're thinking about in any given context. Here, 1850 is indeed "recent" because the abstract does allude to a new trend starting in about 1850. Here is the
cited source. The source "significance" paragraph (before the abstract) says
and the abstract says
Since they note the "recent rise" that started in 1850, they have told us how to understand the bit quoted in the edit summary. The RS does indeed say a new trend started about 150 years ago, so the text should be restored if it makes a better article. I haven't focused on this seciton yet and so have not yet formed an opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I will leave it to you to change it for now :). Might help later, but my partner has woken up. Femkemilene ( talk) 07:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
(e/c) Earlier today Prokaryotes added a new section titled "definition". I found this rather incomprehensible after a quick reading and the wikilink to the broad topic of geomorphology is an EGG. The new text I removed read
Let's see if we can craft some comprehensible 5th grade level English here on talk before restoring this section. See WP:NOTJARGON paragraphs 7 and 8. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding a recent change to a citation in the "Satellites" section: The original citation was bad, but removing mention of AVISO and Climate Reanalyzer (here
here), leaving the text attributed solely and directly to Dr. Hansen, is wrong. The
actual source is a blog (
https://robertscribbler.com) of unknown authorship, which says: "Sea level rise analysis and update based on information provided by AVISO, Climate Reanalyzer, and the work of Dr. James Hansen.
" Where specific claims are made the original source should always be cited. This blog might be informed, might be accurate, but is not a reliable source, and citing it misattributes the source of the supposed fact. Remediation requires findng the original, authoritative source; it can probably be found in one of the IPCC reports. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
17:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
but only with care". Specifically, a primary source may be used "
to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
in 2010-2018 was 4.6 millimetres per year". This is, clearly and definitely, a straightforward, descriptive statement of an alleged fact, that can be verified given access to the correct, and original, source. Which is now attributed to Dr. Hansen, but without any identification of where. Note that from this blog actually cited we have only a statement by this anonymous "robertscribbler.com" which is ambiguously (amtriguously?) attributed to Hansen, "Aviso", and "Climate Reanalyzer", with absolutely no information on any of those sources. Removing (as here) any mention of these latter two alleged sources makes it harder to find the original source of this alleged statement. It is also an inherent interpretation (perhaps even OR?) that Hansen is the actual source. As it currently stands, the material can attributed only to "robertscribbler.com", who does not qualify as a reliable source.
generally unacceptable" (per WP:USERG; see also WP:BLOGS). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I propose we keep numbers in the contribution section to a minimum and instead have an informative box-plot with the following information:
There are a few reasons for this
Specifically for the contributions section I'd like to propose there to be a rough indication of the magnitude of all contributions in the first paragraph (percentages are good, thanks User:Prokaryotes, but no/barely any mention in the subsection. This information would instead be captured in a graph based on the IPCC values. If you agree, could you help doing this? I really shouldn't be spending my work hours on Wikipedia now. I'll put the code for the figure up on Github, so that with the September 2019 IPCC report, it can be updated easily. Femkemilene ( talk) 08:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The formulation of "according to at least one study in 2017' is problematic. Is it held true or not? What do secondary sources say? Either you trust a study (because you use the paper as a secondary source or other secondary sources have used this study) and you leave out the 'according to', or you don't trust it and don't include it in Wikipedia. Femkemilene ( talk) 10:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
For now, I removed Prokaryotes text "and this trend could further destabilize the main ice-sheet" because after reading both references (the primary source and the HuffPo column) I can not find text that links the trend now underway on the "peripheral glaciers and ice caps" with destabilization of the main ice sheet. Fun (to me) side note, I posted some speculative OR many years ago in online forum(s) wondering if we would see faster runoff when the firn fills and refreezes. Now when I do some more OR, I agree if the peripheral glaciers and ice caps go away that might - in my opinion - contribute to destabilization of the main ice sheet. I can certainly understand why you might think that way too P. HOWEVER, maybe I missed the text in these RSs that connects these dots. Below please quote the specific sentence or two you think makes this connection from these sources? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone object if I combine the archives for the various years into just one page? For example, I already combined the multiple archive pages for 2006 into just one. Most of them had just one or two short threads. This effort is intended as a prelude to tuning up the auto archive feature so it mimics the way we do it at Talk:Global warming, except we can still archive here at 180 days, compared to just 21 over there. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Work in progress NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@JFG: you just changed the size of the figures in the article. I assume that absolute sized figures lead to problems on different devices?? Is there a way to make the figures somewhat bigger without using absolute sizes? Some of the figures would definitely benefit from being somewhat bigger. Femkemilene ( talk) 10:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Prokaryotes: you recently added information about the marine ice cliff instability, which I believe is important. The previous paragraph is about the marine ice sheet instability, which I believe is better established. I think mentioning the slopes of the cliff is confusing, as this is not part of the ice cliff instability, but instead the mechanims behind the ice sheet instability. Could you correct your grammar + write an explanation that does not confuse the two processes? Here a paper explaining both: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05003-z. Femkemilene ( talk) 09:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Shall we try to keep a consistent citation style in this article? I have a preference for not mentioning names in the main text (Baker et al (2001) said X), but using the superscript style instead because (a) names are not sources of information people come looking for and therefore make it more difficult to read actual content (b) Names imply, to me at least, that the statement is dependent on the opinion of the author. With good reliable sources, this shouldn't really be the case. If if it too controversial, better not mention it except when it's extremely important. (c) Names are already mentioned in the reference section. Femkemilene ( talk) 11:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
mentioning names in the main text".
abstract fine points of citation in general" (as NAEG puts it); I was addressing (with a concrete example, no less) specific comments which bear on the actual work you are doing.
at the end of the article" (per JFG). But I have a feeling that may not be precisely what these guys really have in mind. JFG also says "
not Harvard", but ambiguity runs rampant: does he mean not Harvard style referencing? Or not Harv templates? The problem is that many, many WP editors confound these two. "Harv" templates are for creating short-cites, and avoid the short-comings of named-refs (and the abominable {{ rp}}).
Harv anything"? Is there such hatred of Harvard referencing style that it carries over to anything remotely connected with it? The "Harv" family of templates are the best way we have of doing short cites, and needs not get any closer to "Harvard" style than that. So would you feel any better about using short cites if the templates had a different name? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Recap I think we have agreed we will use the drop-down citation templates (or their close cousins that are not in the dropdown menu) in a straightforward way, and call it a day. If that's true, can we please close this thread? If it's not true can someone please state the proposal or question in twenty words or less? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
|access-date=
I just reverted this edit which added this text
There are multiple issues here. The most important issue has to do with the 1 inch/year number. The cited sources have their own links, so I dug and found the original study, "Spatial and temporal variability of sea level rise hot spots over the eastern United States". The first problem is that this text implies seas are going up an inch per year and will stay like that. In reality, the sources are talking about temporary "hot spots" that appear along different parts of the coast. The study says they haven't been sure why, and these scientists think El Nino' drives most of the rise and the Atlantic oscillation mostly determines where that rise shows up along the coast. A news tease say this runs in contrast to the prior speculation that it was tied to climate change and slowing thermohalince circulation. That's also what this ScienceDaily news story says. Another big problem is reporting beach erosion rates but not mentioning the complex factors including - as the sources say - that beach outlines and sandbars are always migrating. Overall, coastal impacts and regional variation is indeed something we need to carefully explain. But this paragraph needs substantial work. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
References
In this edit Femkemilene added some nicely explained text about sediments and mangroves. Of the three RSs, this one is paywalled, and from the abstract page it isn't clear that this article really encompasses sediments and mangroves, as opposed to sediments and other habitats. So I couldn't verify this part of the paragraph. (The rest is great, thanks.) F, when you have the chance, could you please ensure that the RS I linked here really supports the text you added? For context, please review the English Wikipedia's understanding of WP:SYNTH. We want to make sure we don't do that. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 07:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Article talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
These models assume ice melt is linear when in fact ice melt is exponential. Ice melt is a complicated subject but fundamentally it melts away from the heat sources which are primarily on top and bottom so the ice thins. Heat transfer through ice is not instantaneous so you get surface melt. You basically have the same surface area exposed to the heat sources so less and less ice has to absorb the same amount of heat. The ice that is remaining is absorbing more latent heat needing less and less additional heat to make it melt and that is exponential. If you're not familiar with an exponential curve you win the Lottery. They give you the choice of 3 million dollars in hand or a penny the first day two pennies the next doubling it each day for 30 days (exponential), which one would you choose? Where are we in an exponential curve? The data would suggest we're right where the exponential curve start heading to the stratosphere. James B MacDonald — Preceding unsigned comment added by James B MacDonald ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC) James Brian MacDonald 15:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC) |
User:Distelfinck just removed some information about hard and soft adaptation strategies, because apparently there is a more common definition of hard and soft. I'm willing to believe I made a mistake here; I'm not an expert in the nonphysical side of sea level rise. Having come across the term multiple times, I do think it is important to include the correct definition in the article though. What other definitions are around and which sources support that different definition?
(For reference, the text that was removed: These adaptation options can be further divided into hard and soft. Hard adaptation relies mostly on capital-intensive human-built infrastructure and involves large-scale changes to human societies and ecological systems. Because of its large scale, it is often not flexible. Soft adaptation involves strengthening natural defenses and adaptation strategies in local communities and the use of simple and modular technology, which can be locally owned. The two types of adaptation might be complementary or mutually exclusive. The building of a dike (hard adaptation) for instance destroys the natural dune system and dune nourishment will not be possible anymore. [1] [2]). Femkemilene ( talk) 21:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
References
The beginning of the lead establishes cm as the dominant unit, at least below 1000 cm.
So there are two problems with the sentence below:
For example, in 2007 the high end of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections through 2099 was less than 2 feet (0.61 m), but in their 2014 report the high end was considered to be about 3 feet (0.91 m).
The first is that it's disruptive to be switching here into feet (though perhaps this is to honour the source, which in any case I would regard as actually more of a disservice to the reader than benefit to the source) and the second is that the metric units should be glossed (if they must be glossed) in cm to remain consistent with the previous metric units introduced, rather than meters.
The IPCC is a body of the United Nations. Maybe they put out one version of the report in Imperial units for a certain affluent, but proudly ostracized audience, though surely metric is their own native unit internally, and primary unit in most of their publications. — MaxEnt 18:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the article is almost ready for a good article nomination. Here a list of the criteria, and what I think we should still do before nominating the article.
Femkemilene ( talk) 08:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
References
@ Femkemilene: Thanks for all your hard work. I have improved the prose to clarify some facts for lay readers, especially in the lede section that suffered from inconsistencies in units. I have also added some citation needed tags in locations where they are missing. Even if it may sound obvious that coastal cities are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, every statement in the article should be backed by RS. I'd be happy to help with further copyediting towards GA approval. — JFG talk 23:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
There was a section on extreme slr events, which I think should be re-added because it appears significant if larger parts of ice sheets begin to disintegrate, or there are more similar events. See the section here. prokaryotes ( talk) 17:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued work here, Femkemilene. In an edit summary you wronte science of SLR progresses fast; estimates done in 2010/2011 not relevant. There is an aspect that I've always believed to be highly relevant.... plotting old projections over time. When you drill down into the details of old projections, a story unfolds of (A) how we learned some things while learning that we did not know things (the so-called "known unknowns"), (B) as the known-unknowns become quantified the projections consistently go up, and (C) ... this might be redundant.... but over time the big reports with updates projections seem to keep going up. So the old projections aren't entirely meaningless. Just to be clear, I'm not objecting to your recent deletion of some of the old projections. Just saying that the data underlying the deleted text is useful in other ways and we should be open to using it in another context. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The lead section is not bad but does not meet Wikipedia requirements. MOS:LEADELEMENTS It should be short and precise about what the subject is and is not. The title should be included in Bold type. Rlsheehan ( talk) 19:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The MOS says:"If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". That is easily accomplished and was done so in wording up to 24 August.
That wording seems simple and clear. Readers know what the article is about. I suggest we go back to that wording or something similar. Rlsheehan ( talk) 20:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the banner. Not saying the lede is now perfect and suggestions for improvements are of course still welcome. At the moment it does summarize the article and satisfies all requirements. Femkemilene ( talk) 18:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The first reference in the lead is a) from 1997, b) is behind a paywall, and c) the abstract makes no mention of the statement being made in the article. I am uncomfortable with the use of the word "about" in the lead's first para (twice) when referring to measurements. It is ambiguous as to whether "about" means the measurements are uncertain, differ between ensembles or has been rounded. I am just flagging this because I read the first para, and thought: "wait, what?". I am happy to go looking for a set of free access supporting references (rather than just one) for some of the lead's claims ... but I'm still a very new editor. I have experience at the tertiary education level, but am still learning WP's guidelines and rules. By all means, stop me if I'm going down the wrong track here. Thanks to all, commenters here in talk and those who've worked on this article to date. Prime Lemur ( talk) 13:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
(continuation from previous discussion, that went off track)
Weren't projections linear at one time? I thought IPCC said something like SLR by 2100=59cm extending a linear trend of past observations of mostly thermal expanison..... but subject to dynamical ice sheet changes which we can't include due to lack of understanding.... that was the 2000 or 2007 report, I think. Am I remember that right? Kind of related.... if we don't have a gripping way to show how projections have changed over time that might be a high impact graphic waiting to be created NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@P. You want us to mention that newer models better capture trends. So far the introductions mentions a general new models are better. The model section mentions: "This type of modelling was partially motivated by the fact that in previous IPCC assessments most physical models underestimated the amount of sea level rise compared to observations of the 20th century". Do you want it to be more specific? If so, what concrete changes do you want? Femkemilene ( talk) 08:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@NEAG. I'm afraid that if you string together a lot of old estimates, you automatically make a narrative of climate scientist are too conservative, maybe even implying that these estimates could go further up. If there is a reference explaining this in the context of SLR, I'm okay with dedicating a line to that. Femkemilene ( talk) 08:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hurricanehink ( talk · contribs) 19:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this important article. I got up to the end of "Sea level measurement".
Will finish later. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Subsidence, isostatic rebound, gravitational effects of changing ice masses, and spatially varying patterns of warming lead to differences in sea level change around the globe,[83] including regions with sea level fall (near current and former glaciers and ice sheets). - that is too much for one sentence. Warm up your readers with an introduction to the subject matter you're about to introduce, not throw in everything but the kitchen sink! If this entire section is about Greenland, then you should say as such, and put the last sentence of that paragraph first. Done
That's my review. There is a lot here, but a lot of it is number formatting. It could be doable within a week. I'll leave it open until February 2, next Saturday. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Why remove the word sophisticated? And why use outdated source (IPCC 2013) here when IPCC 1.5 report also talks about these models, and how drastically they have changed? Femkemilene ( talk) 13:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Whatever happened to comprehensible WP:NOTJOURNAL secondary sources? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)