Talk:Current sea level rise

Archives

• Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2004/10
• Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2005/2 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2005/3 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2005/4 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2005/5 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2005/6 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2005/8 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2005/9 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2005/12
• Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2006/1 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2006/2 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2006/6
• Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2007/1 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2007/2 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2007/3 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2007/5 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2007/7 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2007/9 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2007/10 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2007/12
• Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2008/1 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2008/2 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2008/3 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2008/10 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2008/12
• Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2009/1 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2009/2 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2009/3 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2009/4 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2009/5 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2009/9 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2009/12
• Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2010/2 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2010/3 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2010/5 Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2010/6
• Talk:Current sea level rise/Archives/2011/6

Factors known to affect sea level (SL)

Singer lists three factors (first two are from IPCC):

The contribution to SL rise of the past century comes mainly from three sources: (i) Thermal expansion of the warming ocean contributed about 4 cm; and (ii) the melting of continental glaciers about 3.5 cm. (iii) The polar regions, on the other hand, produced a net lowering of SL, with most of this coming from the Antarctic. (The mechanism is intuitively easy to understand but difficult to calculate: A warming ocean evaporates more water, and some of it rains out in the polar regions, thus transferring water from the ocean to the polar ice caps.) The surprising result: When one simply adds up all these contributions (neglecting the large uncertainties), they account for only about 20 percent of the observed rise of 18 cm. The climate warming since 1900 cannot be the cause of the SL rise; something is missing here. (Singer)

Indented line

global warming and sea level rise

What about the effects of human-induced global warming on SL rise? Will it really increase the rate above its natural value, as predicted by the IPCC? We do have a handle on this question by observing what actually happened when the climate warmed sharply between 1900 and 1940, before cooling between 1940 and 1975. The answer is quite surprising and could not have been derived from theory or from mathematical models. The data show that SL rise slowed down when the climate warmed and accelerated when the climate cooled. Evidently, ocean-water thermal expansion and mountain-glacier melting were less important than ice accumulation on the Antarctic continent (which lowers SL). (ibid.)

I'm sorry, but the claim that current sea-level rise is due to AGW is absolutely absurd. The evidence simply doesn't bear this out. The rise has not changed for over 5 thousand years, as shown by graphs in this very article! To claim that AGW is having an effect on SLR is unconscionably incorrect. A note of "don't change this even if you disagree" is incredibly asinine. When there is no evidence for a claim, Wikipedia's own policies say the claim should be removed. I've edited the statement to reflect that.

To support my dispute, I provide the following:

"there is no discernible divergence in the rate of sea-level rise over the past two centuries [1800-2000] to suggest a connection with the documented increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration… the rate of sea-level rise has been linear over this time period and shows no indication of the pronounced mid-20th-century increase"[1].

I have little problem saying that people "suggest" that current sea-level rise is due to AGW, as people certainly do. There is, in fact, a great deal of scientific discussion about it. Heck, even an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC questions it[2]. Thus, to say that current SLR is due to AGW is far from "neutral" and, more importantly, in dispute at this moment.

Aaronburro (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

None of the graphs in this article prove what you're suggesting. The millenial graphs only show mildly fluctuating trends during the past thousands of years but the scale is too large to discern any human influence. The first graph only suggests no trend increase since the early 20th Century. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 17:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

References; Harv?

The citations/references in this article seem generally in good shape (and in template form!), albeit with a few exceptions, and (I think) some incompleteness. I would upgrade the IPCC citations (which the article draws on heavily) as I have done at Global warming, but because of the repeated use of some of the references it would be much handier (and clearer) to use {{Harv}} templates for the specific citations. Any objections? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently no objections, then, of using Harv. But more questions. E.g., I see that the existing references section seems to be of sources not cited in the article. Any reason for this? Is this supposed to be a "further reading" section? And assuming that it should be kept (but renamed?) I would also like to reformat it so the templates are easier to read. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I was intentionally butting out since I backed you on the ref method, but when you first posted I was tempted to write "please do, and then I can see how harv works in an article I care about". As for orphaned refs, please start a new subsection with a specific version #, and the number of the orphaned ref. Not sure what you're referring to.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I like to see references using templates on any article, I'm glad J. Johnson (JJ) is taking on formatting and organizing references. I would like some clarification on the advantage of the {{Harv}} over other citation templates, I've always used {{cite *}} templates myself, and am not used to seeing the larger citations on wikipedia. (larger than a small number in square brackets that is) If you can let me know that would be great. Thanks! --Keithonearth (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, all this toiling away hardly leaves me with any time to sit around the fire and engage in verbal spats with the others! If you want a running list of articles I've been hacking on (or about to) check User_talk:J. Johnson#Artices revised. Coming soon to a favorite of yours!

As to Harv "over" cite: wrong comparison, as they work at slightly different levels. 'Cite' (and 'citation') produce a reference to an external source, with all the bibliographic trimmings. 'Harv' is a convienent way of linking a citation, with specific details such as section or page numbers in the source, to a local reference. It is possible to use Harv even with manually formatted references (some assembly of a suitable CITEREF anchor is required).

I sense possible confusion. What I referred to early is basically all of the references (the whole bibilographic entry) in the current "References" section: they all seem uncited in the article.

_ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Linked examples please! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Like everything at Current_sea_level_rise#References? Sorry, I'm feeling duller than usual today, and don't understand what kind of examples you want. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you're low-E today, JJ. I know nothing about Harv. I could of course read the help section about Harv, and attempt to infer how you propose to use it, but it would be faster (at least for me) and less prone to misinterpretation (by me) if you can point to an existing use, or else create one as a demo. One way I like to demo is on my own page, and another is to do make the change to the article, and then revert myself, just to create an old version link as an example. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to put a demo nd brief exegesis on your talk page. See you there. You, too, Keith. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And done. Which leaves my prior question: what should be done about the references in the existing References section, none(?) of which are cited in the article? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to just rename that section to "Further reading", like has been done in some other articles. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Enescot: in your "correction of Fischlin" (with which I concur) your addtional "added important IPCC information" undid substantial work of mine in splitting the named refs. I think they should be split (specification aids verfication and detection of errors), and I would begrudge having to do that over again. The easiest fix is to revert your change, then add the SMP text manually. Are you okay with that? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

An editor has for the second time deleted content (as OR?) that is at most in need of slight rephrasing. The cited doi:10.1007/s00382-009-0567-y should be quite unambiguous, but if more/better sources are still desired, the appropriate response is to tag with a challenge such as {{cn}} or {{proveit}}, not simply delete. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The text I deleted]] appeals to me and I would not be surprised if that phenomena will be documented. I note you you initially tagged the highly technical journal reference with (verification needed), but you now describe it as "unambiguous". Assuming good faith, I assume you read it and understood it before editing the article, but that leaves me mystified why you tagged it (verification needed)? Despite my science degree I found the paper quite dense. What paragraph(s) in particular do you think unambiguously support the deleted text?

Meanwhile, I spent some time looking for secondary sources discussing that paper, and also other papers by the same author, and I would love to put the text back in. But so far, I have found no sources to support it. Please prove me wrong! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I tagged it vn to ensure it would get looked at more closely than I had time for at the moment. The deleted text read "If, for instance, the Arctic Ocean becomes ice free, it becomes a giant solar collector. Warm air rising off this open ocean, with much increased water vapor and hence latent heat could couple with katabatic winds over Greenland. Such an import of heat applied to the surface of the ice would accelerate melting." The first sentence, while rather obvious, is supported by the albedo discussion in Doscher et al. The second sentence is supported by the first full para on p.1174. The third is barely more than commonsense: every 540 calories of added heat melts an additional gram of ice. I agree thought, that the source is in rather dense language, and a plainer source would be helpful. One paper that cites it, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0870.2010.00474.x, might be worth exploring.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource A Sky-Hide Tide, This Time Fleeting, but Perhaps a Glimpse of things to Come

King Tide to Raise Sea Level on Atlantic Coast ... The sea level around New York has been rising about an inch per decade over the past 100 years. On Thursday, it will rise even higher, ... October 26, 2011 page A22 in print Title, by Jim Dwyer 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

King tide 99.190.85.15 (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe include on Climate change in the United States &/or Regional effects of global warming. 99.181.138.228 (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Verification tag JJ added to a couple cites to Table SPM.1

Hi JJ, thanks for caring. It is unclear what problems you think might be there.

For this sentence you tagged, were you objecting to the numbers themselves (table is in meters our text converted to cm), fact that the article has synthesized a single range out of six marker scenarios, or something else?

For the lead sentence you tagged, see above plus an additional problem. The citation in this sentence only points to a table on a webpage. The table only talks about numbers so it does not support the rest of the text in the sentence you tagged. However, if you go down two paragraphs below the table please find where IPCC said "Because understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise." I think that statement supports the rest of the text, and if you agree, the citation needs to be expanded somehow. Alas, I am unsure how to do that in a way that supports your excellent standardization program. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In both cases I was not objecting to extracting the numbers from the table (it seems obvious that the editor was simply taking the low and high estimates), but it seems (to me) that the 18 cm datum might not be correct. And I would rather that someone else evaluate that. Also, it might be preferable to cite the table where it first appears (somewhere in WG1); perhaps there is a little more discussion there.

In the second to last paragraph of the lede I am somewhat confused by the pair of sentences here, both of which cite Table SPM.1 (notes 10 and 11). In the first instance it seems uncontrovertible that IPCC projected sea level rise, and I wonder why the citation is even needed. In the second case it is unclear whether the citation is for the figures taken from the table, or for the second part of the sentence, that the IPCC "explicitly refrained from assessing ...", in which case the table is not the section to cite. I am wondering if the two sentences could be rearranged somewhat.

Tell me more on how you think the citation needs expanding. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 20:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

While you're in there, perhaps you (or anyone else that want's something to do) could also give some attention to the bunch of troubled citations starting at note 54 (and also 84). If they need to be split up (because they refer to different sections) let me, and I'll do that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for caring, those are all good questions. If no one gets to it first, I will try to spend time on this next week.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Graphic update?

The sea level graphic is getting a little long in the tooth. Is it time to find a more current replacement?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There's several in the article. Which one did you have in mind? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The "Recent Sea Level Rise" in the upper right, which only goes through 2003.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

An additional reason for replacing the image is that the current one looks OR. I don't see that this was discussed, although perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place. There's no need to have, or rehash that discussion, if a contemporary replacement can be found.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Remember that just because some editor puts together a graphic does not automatically make it OR, provided there's a consensus the graphic fairly represents the info in an RS. With that in mind, here's a possibility NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope we can do better. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Better is good. Could you be more specific about why you think it didn't measure up?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Planned edit

A sentence in the lede

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected sea level rise of 18 and 59 cm (7.1 and 23 in) during the 21st century, estimating that the rate would further increase

suffers from two problems.

1. The wording about the range doesn't hint that it is a range.
2. The phrase in bold isn't supported in the source. Did I miss something?

My planned replacement:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sea level rise projections range from 18 to 59 cm (7.1 and 23 in) during the 21st century.

For the very anal, the IPPC does not have a projection, but a series of projections, and the values chosen are the low end of the lowest projection and the high end of the highest projection. It is technically flawed to create a range this way, but it would be unreasonably wordy in a lede paragraph to spell out the gory details. If someone has a better idea, please chime in. As for the second phrase, unless I missed something, it is not supported, unless it is bad English and the author was trying to say something like "rise is expected to continue into the 22nd century".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree but would go further.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that during the 21st century, sea level will rise another 18 to 59 cm (7.1 and 23 in), not counting possible changes in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets or increased warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks.

See for example, pg 70 of IPCC 2007 AR4 WG1's technical summary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I like that with a tiny modification. Given that we are using the summary for the source, I thought I would use their exact wording:

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that during the 21st century, sea level will rise another 18 to 59 cm (7.1 and 23 in), not counting "future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow".

The problem with the carbon-cycle feedback phrase is that it is one-sided, while the report clearly refers to increased uncertainty, meaning that could contribute positively or negatively.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is your PDF for A4 or for American Letter? (it makes a difference). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This page reads like propaganda

This pages reads like propaganda. The first two sentences; "Sea levels are rising. Current sea level rise potentially impacts human populations (e.g., those living in coastal regions and on islands)[1] and the natural environment (e.g., marine ecosystems).[2]" read like a political statement and not a scientific statement. Not that I am suprized in the least since most of these pages read like propaganda, but this one is one of the more blatent about it.

A little reasearch on the second statement is a pretty big unknown. While there is a potential, none of what I saw linked to that statement say anything specific only that more research is needed. The second statement also does not pass the smell test. As a diver, the current stated increase of a couple of mm per year, is not consistant with an ecosystem that spans tens of metres of water column, and is affected by daily variation of several feet. Coral's, tunicates, and sponges (which would be most impacted by any rise) also span several metres of water column. A rise of several feet on average over a short period of time would have an impact, but the small rise claimed simply will not, and the sources do not make such a weighty statement. Arzel (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

When can we expect some draft edits for suggested improvement? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's no good changing the lede, which summarises the article, without first changing all the facts and figures quoted and referenced in the article body. That will be no mean feat. I don't see how a summary of scientific research can be characterised as "political" "propaganda", unless the definition of political debate gives credence to an extreme anti-science, and anti-rational, stance. This diagram shows an interesting and relevant summary, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually i believe that Arzel is at least partially correct. Who ever cited the natural environment part, confused sea-level rises with generic climate change impact. (wrong section in the IPCC!). And the sentence is actually not a summary of any part of the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, that may be a good point. I was responding to the wider criticism at the start of the original comment. On the specific point of rising sea-levels' effect on marine ecosystems, I did find these in the cited IPCC ref:

• "Impacts: Climate change can impact marine ecosystems through ocean warming (Wang et al., 2004b), by increasing thermal stratification and reducing upwelling (Cox et al., 2000; Sarmiento et al., 2004a), sea level rise (IPCC, 2001) [...]"
• "A predicted sea-level rise of 0.5 m will eliminate up to 32% of sea-turtle nesting beaches in the Caribbean (Fish et al., 2005)."
• "Additionally, at least some populations of this [bird] species could also lose critical migratory stopover habitat (Delaware Bay, USA) to sea-level rise (Galbraith et al., 2002). [...] Many of these [bird] species also winter in coastal areas vulnerable to sea-level rise (Inkley et al., 2004)."
• "Extensive loss/conversion of habitat in Kakadu wetland due to sea-level rise and saltwater intrusion"
• "Other climate change factors (such as sea-level rise, storm impact and aerosols) and non-climate factors (such as over-fishing, invasion of non-native species, pollution, nutrient and sediment load (although this could also be related to climate changes through changes to precipitation and river flow; Chapter 6, Box 6.1; Chapter 11, Box 11.3; Chapter 16)) add multiple impacts on coral reefs (Chapter 16, Box 16.2), increasing their vulnerability and reducing resilience to climate change (Koop et al., 2001; Kleypas and Langdon, 2002; Cole, 2003; Buddemeier et al., 2004; Hallock, 2005)."

I don't know if these can be considered enough to warrant that clause in the lede. Maybe these points need including better into the body first, as per my original post here. --Nigelj (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

Of particular interest as I tried to dig deeper was this and this and this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, all very interesting. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)