Jump to content

Talk:Sea level rise

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keelec (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 4 July 2012 (→How accurate is the Early Holocene sea levels?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Archives

"Page" needed tags.

Regarding Sphilbrick's removal of a "page" needed tag, with the edit summary: "Page number not needed, the site linked doesn't even have page numbers, and the refernce to the table number is more precise, in any event" – I have reverted it.

In the first place, specific location within a source is needed for WP:V. That the IPCC report cited does not have page numbers in its html version is why section numbers (and titles) are preferred, but lacking a {{section needed}} or even {{specific location neeed}} tag, I sometimes make do with "page neeeded". (Which would suffice, as checking the page in the pdf would give the section.) Yes, linking to the table is specific, but we should also link to the context.

This instance is easily remedied, but I point it out so the general situation is understood. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, specific location within a source is needed for WP:V.
The Table number is highly specific.
You asked for a page number, it doesn't have a page number. If you want something else, you should ask for something else.
As I explained above: there isn't a {{section needed}} tag, so I made do with what is available. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no section numbers within the source. (it is section 3, but that refers to the entire link, so that number doesn't serve to narrow down the search).
For sure, the link needs to be split. See below. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can identify a better way to identify the table, by all means do so, but a reference to the first table in the site seems hard to beat.
I request that you revert your own reversion, as you have provided no coherent rationale for your tag.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually I'll make another pass through there and clean-up several related problems. Leaving the tag in will help me (or anyone else that wants to fix it) locate the problem. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I work with IPCC documents in PDF form saved to my hard drive. I could find a table by table number, but page numbers are very convenient. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do I, but how would we know that your PDF version pages the same as someone else's? Other than the silly observation that this is the first table so it is probably page 1, but in general, I don't believe PDF page numbers are unique. It certainly doesn't help me find a table if someone tells me it is on page 20 of a PDF on someone else's hard drive, when the same document save by me might have it on page 18, or page 24. but the Table number is always the same. If the citation was to a fixed PDF which had page numbers, then page numbers would be helpful, but that isn't the case here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's some magic I don't know about, PDF pagebreaks are part of the original file and are not influenced by any settings on the system that is downloading the file. I was refering to the page breaks that come with the official PDF file provided at the IPCC website. True, they might sometimes change the file to account for errata and the like. But in 2012, I doubt that is happening much with the 2007 and earlier reports. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is your PDF for A4 or for American Letter? (it makes a difference). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The authority for a page number is the printed version of each report, which should be faithfully shown in the page image in your pdf. As to the pdf-page numbering, well, AR4 (and I believe TAR, but don't recall just off hand) cleverly synchronize that with the printed pagination. But if there should be a discrepancy, the page number of the printed version is controlling. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is close to tendentious. The information is located at the end of the link... It is verifiable by anyone - thus adhering 100% to WP:V An excuse such as "its to remind myself" is certainly not acceptable. But if you really really really want to know the page in the SPM - it is page 8. If this is the result of adhering to a "new standard" for IPCC citations - then it has gone out of control. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better word is "implicit" rather than "tendentious". The thread implicitly drifted beyond this one citation and got into JJ's broader efforts at standardizing IPCC citations. For that broader scope, I agree we should use the printed number on the page, and not the number in the PDF reader toolbar. On the other hand, I also think the purpose is to help people find info. Standardizing the format is a great help and something of a thankless task. (Thanks JJ) On the other hand, once it is set up, little form discrepancies here and there are no big deal, and that is especially true for any article that gets under 200 hits per day, which is the vast majority of climate articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Perhaps everyone needs reminding that this thread started with my explaining the seemingly illogical use a page needed tag for a source that, at one level, does not have pagination. And it's only temporary. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgotten, nor have I seen a cogent argument in support of the need for a page number for a document without page numbers.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then I shall explain it again: the document has page numbers, just not the on-line html version. So while a page number is suitable for print and pdf versions, specification of the section would, indeed, be more appropriate. But there is no {{section needed}} tag, so I used the page needed tag. I some cases I have also inserted a comment explaining that, and rather wished I had done so in this case, as it would have saved a lot of trouble and time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating a flawed argument doesn't help—the entire source is a single section of the report, so adding a section number is silly. What do you propose should be done? I propose removing the useless tag. What do you propose?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless some bot would kill this approach, I'd just use {{section needed}} "template" and say "see talk section 'section needed tags'" in the edit summary. Then you could explain this again.... but hopefully for the last time. Sphil.... those who look at this reference via html in a browser are likely to navigate via section number. Those who use pdf or hardcopy are likely to use printed page number (as it appears in the page footer). I do both. Its the same reference, just packaged in different formats. JJ has come up with a pretty nifty way to enable both groups of readers to follow our citations with ease. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag implies that some information is missing, and can be supplied if someone would just track it down. I don't think that's the case here. I don't think we should have a maintenance tag for something that is inherently unfixable. What purpose does it serve, other than to waste the time of editors who might be working on an article? I know JJ has bones some nice work on standardizing the reference canon. I applaud that work. But need I quote Emerson? I propose removing the tag as it serves no useful purpose.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said:

those who look at this reference via html in a browser are likely to navigate via section number.

Why do you think this is true? If you click on the link, the Table is right there. Why on earth would you search for a section number when the Table is in front of you. If you are used to the pdf, you probably know the table anyway, or are familiar with the document already, and know how to find the table. This table is identified more specifically than 99.99% of all references, and you are begging for a less specific reference item. This makes no sense, and I can't believe so much time is being wasted in this. Do you remember the kid's joke about the executive who asked his assistant where his pencil was? When she replied, "behind your ear", he retorted, "I'm a busy guy. Which ear?" You guys are trying to specify which ear of a one-eared guy. Why?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also laud that JJ attempts at consolidating IPCC links.... but in this case it is ridiculous, and as said earlier tendentious. If a link goes directly to the information (on a reliable source) that verifies the information, then WP:V adhered to in full.... and requiring information beyond that is certainly not a tagging issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, Setting the tagging issue aside, do you have any objection to having both a section/figure/table number as well as a pdf (or hardcopy) page number for IPCC citations? If you don't mind that, then is the your objection here based only on the fact that these tag(s) temporarily clutter up article(s)? If that is the only concern, could you abide any time with the tags to accommodate a work in progress, or are you arguing from a tag-zero-tolerance perspective? Nothing emotional here, just trying to assess the exact bounds of the issue(s). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following why you say Temporary, and I'm pushing this partly because it might mean that I'm missing something. That site is never going to have a page or section number, so why is the tag temporary? I'm in favor of tags that indicate a problem with a possible resolution; this one sounds like a request for information that simply doesn't exist. Again, I'm asking because you said "temporary" which leads me to wonder if I fully understand.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not. Kim already told us the page number is 8, contrary to the facts you state. Kim, what about those Qs I asked you? Is temporary page clutter the only objection/issue you have with JJ's approach? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tags are the issue here - and they are entirely inappropriate, when the citations are compliant with WP:V. But talking in general, the more metadata that is available - the better. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reality check. JJ, in the future, instead of article tags IN READ MODE how about placing some sort of indexing label in a hidden inline comments, and then adding a to-do list indexed with those labels on the talk page?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Among the main reasons discussions like this often get tendentious are 1) people not paying attention to what has been said, and 2) multiple issues being introduced pell-mell. As to the latter, I don't mind (generally) trying to address every particular issue someone may have, but it would be better to take them up one at a time, deal with them, and then leave them in order to move on. So here are issues raised so far, and my responses (one or more for the third time).

1) Compliance with WP:Verification, particularly regarding pagination and such. I quote: "The citation should fully identify the source, and the location within the source (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) where the material is to be found.". Now this has been subject of some controversy, where many editors think a bare url is "good enough", or that merely waving at some source is close enough. I suspect many of you attending this discussion have not done much verification, or you would be demanding as specific citation as possible. I am minded of another discussion (re Harv) where much was made of making things easier for the editor that writes, but there seems to be practically no regard for making things easier for the editor (or reader) that wants to verify. I remind you all the verification is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, that the key to verification is proper citation, and that there are standards for proper citation (both within and without WP) – OF WHICH THIS AND OTHER ARTICLES FALL SHORT. The bottom line: all this grief complaining about a page number tag would have been better spent supplying the page number.

2) The source doesn't have a page number, and therefore the alleged problem is inherently unfixable. Simply wrong on the facts. The document – as published by the Uhiv. of Cambridge Press in print format, and available on-line in pdf format, both of which are referenced by editors here – has page numbers. (And, as NAEG pointed out, Kim has supplied the an actual page number.) It is the on-line html version which lacks page numbers, which is why section number and title are preferable.

3) "Section needed" would be more appropriate. Unfortunately, we don't have a {{section needed}} or even a {{specific location neeed}} tag; I used what was available. (The time spent on this discussion is almost sufficient to have made such a tag.) Though I rather like NAEG's suggestion of just using the red-link "tag", and will consider it in the future.

4) The table url is specific enough, and begging for a less specific reference item. I agree the table url is specific, but why is it objectionable to augmenting it with additional metadata? Along the same lines ISBN is sufficient for a book, so why bother with title, etc.? My self, I think there should be more context (metadata), like which section the table is in. Certainly it is well to have a url that goes straight to a table, but often these go to separate pages. So as a general rule I include more context. Why is that a problem?

5) Tags not temporary. Only if the problem tagged is "inherently unfixable", which I have disproved (see above).

Hopefully that settles those points, and any continued discussion can find new points. (I believe Kim has some outstanding concerns?)

NAEG has suggested that in the future I could could setup a list in the Talk page with links to any problems. That is an interesting idea, but I am thinking not: that's what the tags are supposed to do, and it would a lot of work better spent on the problems themselves. I would point out that I am not trying to make anything perfect, just better. And where I should ask to make one small thing better, why is there all this grief?

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My response really should have been WP:TLDR.....
Repeating assertions that have been addressed before, does not make your arguments better. Your #1 is simply a false wiki-lawyer(ish) "interpretation" of WP:V. #2 is a strawman (based on #1). #3 is another strawman based on #1. #4 is yet another strawman - no one is against augmenting it - just don't tag it! #5 is irrelevant, since the tags are based on a false assumption.
You simply continue on the same tendentious route as before. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had read Kim's response first, and saved myself the time I spent reading. I agree with Kim's response, and won't repeat the points. You say "The document – as published by the Uhiv. of Cambridge Press in print format, and available on-line in pdf format, both of which are referenced by editors here – has page numbers." That some other document has page numbers is not relevant. If consensus supports changing the citation to a different source, one with page numbers, go for it. I don't see a page number of the source cited. I've made mistakes, before (and currently, as I keep typing), so if the pdf cited here has page numbers, please tell me where I can find them. I don't see them. (I think Kim's response that this is page 8 refers to a different version of this report.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguity alert. Since the section is being currently edited, I don't know for certain which cited source's link you are referring to, and more specifically I want to make sure when I click to try to answer you that I call up the same url. Please clarify. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 11, which links to this which now says page 8. Can you point out where I find the page number?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a perfect example. We linked to the html version, which as you correctly note does not have page numbers. However, if you instead download the pdf version, which you might have found at the top-level TOC on the IPCC webpage for the SYR portion of AR4, then you will find the table on page 8 of the pdf.... but don't look at page numbers in your reader toolbar, look at the page numbers in the page footer on the document itself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've split NAEG's last comment into a subsection, as I think the question of tagging in general would be better addressed separately.
I see that Kim has fixed the citation I originally tagged. Not in the way I would do it, but so what? The specific problem has been addressed. (Thank you, Kim.)
But I am quite disappointed about Kim's "a false wiki-lawyer(ish) "interpretation" of WP:V." What I quoted clearly states: "fully identify the source, and the location within the source". How is my interpretation false? And it is hardly wikilawyering to point out what the policy actually says.
Issue #2 is hardly a strawman argument when it is the explicitly stated basis by which the tag was removed.
Kim's general view seems to be that not only does WP:V not require fully identifying the location within the source (a view I dispute), but also forbids any tagging that requests such a location. (And note that a tag is only a request, no one is forced to respond.) I find that bizarre, but this entire topic seems to be too sensitive for many folks, so perhaps further discussion woudl be futile. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IPCC AR4, Synthethesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, Table SPM1 is a 100% complete and fully indentifying citation. It isn't in any way or form ambiguous, it points you directly at the reference and specific location, that you cite, and for the verifier it presents no problems. That you personally would like the citation to contain more information is your personal preference. Links are sugar with respect to WP:V, specific pages are sugar unless the citation is difficult to find, sections are nice, etc etc.
Your Wikignomish work is appreciated, but your obsession with having your own personal views enforced to the detriment of the actual article, is not. I am btw. not amused about your attempt at mindreading, despite its 100% failure in success. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is because I am not a mind reader that I was trying to clarify my understanding of your view. As to personal preferences, mine is that Wikipedia be the best that we, collectively, can produce. Which has implications regarding citation practice, though I would argue that my particular preferences here – of correctness, clarity, consistency, and even (though some of you folks don't accept it) ease of editing and conformance to policy – are no less valid for being what I have adopted as preferences. I suspect that the real issue here is this concern that people might be forced to alter familiar practices. This seems too sensitive for fruitful discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As has become a habit to you, you suspect wrong (don't take a job as a mindreader!). I very very very very very very very very very very very very much care about citations, consistency, clarity, correctness! Most of what i've done on Wikipedia is wikignome work: checking facts, verifying citations, adding citations, correcting citations etc. etc. But i never would let clerical work take precedence over presenting the real information (you know: the encyclopedic ones). And tagging for pure clerical reasons is such. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Visible tagging to complete the info for a 2nd version of the reference after the first version is fully cited

I have changed my mind and no longer support visible tagging, specifically for.... a redundant cite to a different version of the info, after the first is fully cited. Collecting and inputting the metadata is clerical work. It is not vital, but a nice dotting of the I's. Since hidden inline comments afford JJ a reasonable alternative means of reminding JJ, the only reason for visible temp tagging is to recruit clerical help in dotting the Is. It's a nice hope that folks would say "Hey yeah, I'll pitch in!" but in reality I think it works more like "What's this crap?? Seriously? OK, I'll look up the page/section number just to clean this junk up. Sheesh." Meanwhile, the temporary tag could give a casual reader the false impression there is something "wrong" with the tagged statement. What made me change my mind is the negative impact of that probable psychology (though I done any usability testing data to support my hypothesis)!

In contrast, an inline comment is sufficient, with downside only that editor who placed it and any who stumble across know about it. An optional antidote is a teensy bit of extra clerical work of placing a tickle in the talk page "Article has inline hidden comments starting with 'To complete citation...'. Please help by searching for that text and completing the citations." It doesn't recruit (force?) clerical assistance as much as a visible tag, but it will get the job done. I might add that the incremental extra work will likely be less than the cumulative time spent on this thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"at least"

The work on improving the references has been positive, however, the edit improving the reference also added a qualifier to the projection range. Unfortunately, the qualifier is too strong. I don't believe the qualifier is accurate for more than one reason:

  • The least important reason is that it isn't true. The statement, as written, implies that sea level rise cannot possibly be less than 18cm. I grant that it is highly unlikely to be less, but that's not what the statement says. I don't want to dwell too much on this, because WP is about V not T. Let's move on to what the sources say.
  • We know that the IPCC is performing scenario analyses, because that's what they say. They do not go into a lot of detail about what it means to do scenario analyses, because this approach is so ubiquitous, that it doesn't need complete explanation in every discussion. Scenario analyses almost never cover all possible outcomes. It is almost never possible to make absolute statements about outcomes outside the extremes of the most extreme ranges, especially in the physical sciences (in math and logic, it is easily possible to design scenarios covering all possible outcomes). In the physical sciences, with the possible exceptions of low temperatures, and high speeds, one can never exclude outcomes outside the ranges. (With temperatures, absolute zero is a solid lower bound, with speed, the speed of light is usually a good upper bound, but even that is under challenge recently.) It doesn't need to be stated that outcomes below the lower bound of the range of a scenario are possible, because it is virtually always true. If the IPCC viewed this as an unusual exception, they would have stated so. The do not state that it is impossible for sea level rise to be less than 18 cm so we are wrong to impute it. Saying it might be a violation of SYNTHESIS if one could impute it from their words, but I don't even think that is valid.

I thought this would be straightforward, but I was wrong. In an exchange on my talk page, an editor said:

I know this isn't the right place, but I'll post my reply here as a "head's up", and if you take it to the article talk page, please copy and paste this comment since I would say the same thing anyway. Throughout the SYR portion of the AR4 report, in many places, they project numbers and then assign likelihood to those numbers. Please check this specific section (SYR 3-2-1), and don't just look at the table we were talking about in the thread before. Instead, please read the whole page. Note that IPCC says "this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise." (bold supplied) They did not hedge their lower boundary. In law, calling out one term for special treatment but not the other is typically read to say something about both. See also WG1's summary section on sea level projections. In that section they also talk about even higher rates being possible "Further accelerations in ice flow of the kind recently observed in some Greenland outlet glaciers and West Antarctic ice streams could increase the ice sheet contributions substantially, but quantitative projections cannot be made with confidence" Nowhere do I find any suggestion that they thought flows could reduce below whatever rate they used in their projections. (I saw that defined once, but don't remember what it was). Elsewhere, they discuss carbon-cycle feedbacks, and while some are indeed negative, IPCC is generally talking about net warming (which would lead to more thermal expansion and more melting). Again, no nibbles at that lower number, just the upper one. So IMO it accurately reports what IPCC said when I wrote "at least....but the numbers don't include....(two things that throughout the WG1 report are only discussed in terms of staying the same or increasing)". With no science suggesting those unknowns will fall, "at least" is an accurate presentation of the IPCC report.
Also, while citing the IPCC report, the New Zealand ministry of environment web page says "Other consequences include more extreme weather events, like floods, storms, cyclones and droughts, and estimated global sea-level rises of at least 18 to 59cm". [8]. For fun, try the following search string at (A) google and (B) Google-scholar
IPCC "sea level" "at least 18cm" OR "at least 18 cm" OR "at least 18 to 59" OR "at least 18-59" "
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The report adds qualifiers for reasons I think all readers here know well. The scenarios that were constructed specifically excluded a potential major issue—the possibility of increased ice sheet flow. If this occurs, it would affect the upper bounds, so they have included a caveat regarding the upper bound. It is improper to make the legalistic argument that a discussion about the possibility that the upper bound could be breached implies that the lower bound is absolute. This would not only be SYNTHESIS, but false SYNTHESIS, as it does not follow. Indeed, when the report talks about ice flow, they note they are using average rates, they state "The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993-2003, but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future."[emphasis added].

I note that NewsAndEventsGuy has a cite from a New Zealand governmental source using the wording. If it is the consensus of editors that we should use a government site rather than a scientific site to make scientific statements, even when those statement are scientifically wrong, I'll accept the consensus, but we should specifically cite the flawed wording to the New Zealand site, so there is no confusion about the source.

Seriously, I propose that we modify the wording to remove the incorrect qualifier. Can we discuss whether there is a good reason to include this incorrect qualifier?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC) ::: Sphil, before I reply to your arguments here, I have a QUESTION... did you do the Google-scholar search I suggested before posting here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC) nevermind, Today I don't see what I thought I saw when I suggested that. Cryptic enough for you? My apologies, I don't know why I thought yesterday that there was a such a ton of such resounding stuff that it just must confirm my text (self-denigrating sarcasm intended). Today it looks scant. I'll answer more fully later today or the weekendNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be wrong, but you have persuaded me that "at least" is too simplified. Thanks for explaining your reasons with some facts, not just opinions or platitudes.
Happens to the best of us, and happens to me as well :)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of particular interest as I tried to dig deeper was this and this and this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those links, all very interesting. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tectonic Factors affecting Sea level

This WP:SOAP lacks any refs and offers no specific suggestions, such as draft text, for improving the article. Click show to read anyway

There is one factor missing from sea level rise that I would expect based on another wikipedia article (Plate Tectonics). Continental drift is a theory, not undisputed, but accounts for tilting of continents. The changing of sea floor levels and movements of continents surely must make objective and certain measurements of sea level not an exact science. I miss in this article any awareness of these difficulties. For example: to speak of Amsterdam's long term ocean level measurements as though that shore line measurement may be an accurate indicator of the ocean level relative to the European Continent overstates the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandevsr (talk • contribs) 15:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the various remarks on Eustatic and Isostatic changes in the article. Post-glacial rebound is more a factor on the short timescale than tectonic changes iirc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tectonic factors might not be covered, as they are so slow (millions of years) that, by comparison, "glacial" is sizzling. I doubt any scientific reference attributes any of the sea level rise of the last century to tectonic factors (other than glacial rebound), so do not warrant mention per WP:WEIGHT. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

include reference with [better source needed]?

[1] removed with criticism but without a better source...? 108.195.138.200 (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing! We typically don't wikilink the lede (why it seems to be so here is unclear). I don't have a good modern sea level reference off the top of my head. The article that you cited used a single data point, and single areas can be subject to subsidence and other factors, and the article was poorly done. On Wikipedia, it is the responsibility of the contributor to make sure that their contributions are up to standards; while I usually find a replacement reference or something, I am short on time and think in this case that the rest of the article supports the statement (as should be the case for the lede). Awickert (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The OP is an IP sock with a long record of external link spamming, block evasion, and after the block was erroneously allowed to expire (clock should have been reset for each block evasion but was not) they are now doing the bare minimalist editing to strew external links throughout the articles. Their editing is clearly not designed to improve the articles, just the merest thread to get them past the easily demonstrated intent of external spamming. Ironically, the IP's links are supportive of the mainstream assessment of climate science, but their editing behavior weakens our articles because they are driveby posts, not the result of careful reading and thought. Anyone wants to make a formal complaint about my allegations, let 'em. I would love to have this IP sock before a formal ANI proceeding. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info; I've been away for a while. I wasn't lying about the time constraints, though: no chance of me doing anything administrative on Wikipedia. Awickert (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert glacier melt to relevant units

The section on glaciers and ice caps says "High-precision gravimetry from satellites in low-noise flight determined that Greenland was losing more than 200 billion tons of ice per year." In an article concerning sea level, it is not the mass of ice which is of interest to the reader, but its corresponding sea level change. I added a clause indicating that the 200 Gt is 0.6 mm sea level equivalent, but this change was rejected saying that a reference would be required. This is surprising, as the conversion is neither difficult nor controversial. In fact, in this very article the Antarctic mass loss rate is given as "50 Gigatonnes of ice per year ...(around 0.14 mm of sea level rise)." Quadrupling the values, one can deduce that the sea level equivalent of 200 Gt is 0.6 mm, to one significant digit. If more evidence is needed, Velicogna's 2009 paper[2], which apparently is the source of the Greenland figures, at one point gives an equivalence of 373 Gt (Greenland plus Antarctica) to 1.1 mm of sea level rise, from which again one can derive that the sea level equivalent of 200 Gt of ice, is 0.6 mm (again, to one significant digit). So I ask why the proposed change is not appropriate. LijeBailey (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious mass conversion

I have reverted Lfsteven's receent mass conversion because of some very dubious changes. I would not quibble whether "background" should be "lightgray" or "lightgrey". But decapitalizing acronyms is flat-out wrong, and undermines the credibility of all associated changes. So I reverted it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly scanned the changes before you reverted, and didn't notice anything leap out at me. Which acronyms were you referring to? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the "IPCC AR4 WG1" => "Ipcc ar4 wg1" conversions at the bottom of the list. And as the "lightgrey/lightgray" (or was it the other way around??) changes were flat out trivial I reckon these changes as a whole were pointless, and not worth the time or trouble of trying to salvage any particulars. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How accurate is the Early Holocene sea levels?

I'm seeing notes of sea levels during the early Holocene that may have been higher than today, rather than a gradual increase. Perhaps a South African Study. Pehraps this should be added to the page. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-%E2%80%9Ctrap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/ http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/compton-2001-holocene-sea-levels.jpg http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/01histplist.html http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/sealvl3.gif Keelec (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Modern-day sea level rise skyrocketing Increase began with the Industrial Revolution; July 2011 Science News
  2. ^ http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sea_level_rise&oldid=500699600"