Talk:Sea level rise/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 19:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this important article. I got up to the end of "Sea level measurement".

'At least since 1880, the average global sea level has been rising. - considering it's the fourth word, you should probably mention this fact somewhere else in the article, namely the 1880 bit. I'm not the biggest fan of the current wording for the first sentence, as I'd prefer to see "Since at least 1880", but I'm sure the wording is deliberate, so I won't be picky about that. Also, the article says before the recent rising trend starting approximately in 1850 - so is it 1880 or 1850? Done
Between 1900 and 2016 sea level rose by approximately 16 to 21 cm (7-8 inch). - add comma after 2016. Done Also, since it's the first time mentioning these units, they should be spelled out and linked. Done
The acceleration is due mostly to anthropogenic global warming that is driving the thermal expansion of seawater while melting land-based ice sheets and glaciers. - probably the most important sentence in the article (and arguably in our world right now). Perhaps link anthropogenic? I think a few more commas would be helpful, maybe say "warming, which is..." Done The driving the thermal expansion is a bit odd to me, and even reading the link for thermal expansion, I didn't really get it. Is the water getting bigger? The article should be written for the laymen, and just having links might not be enough to make it understandable for everyone.

Hmmm. Water indeed takes up more volume when its temperature rises (except for fresh water of 4 degrees and below). I think it best to keep the term thermal expansion in the lede, but explain in the contributions section. I cannot think of a formulation that is simple, but not so simple people are put off. Femkemilene (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current trend is expected to further accelerate during the 21st century. - expected by whom? Rather than having it in passive voice, perhaps say "Computer models and climate scientists expect the current trend to further accelerate during the 21st century." Done
Projecting future sea level has always been challenging, due to imperfect understanding of many aspects of the climate system. - I'm not a fan of the always here. Could you word it differently?

Is this better? Femkemilene (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your units in the 2nd lede paragraph go from inches to ft. Please be consistent Done
The contributing factors to sea level rise between 1993 and 2018 are thermal expansion of the oceans (42%), melting of temperate glaciers (21%), Greenland (15%) and Antarctica (8%). - I feel like this should be with the bit in the first paragraph when you mention the thermal expansion and glacier melting. Done
Could the tiny 4th and 5th lede paragraphs be merged?

I've instead expanded the 4th paragraph a bit. I think it is important to keep these two things separately, because they are both important.

In the recent geological past changes in land ice and thermal expansion from increased temperatures are the dominant reasons of sea level rise. - add a comma after "past" Done
8.2 thousand years - please be consistent with how you handle these years. Why not just "8,200 years?"

The source does not provide four significant digits, but says 8.2 kyr. 8,200 years implies that we do know the precise year. Femkemilene (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is an "altimetric satellite" should link to satellite altimetry when it's first mentioned. Done
with data for the Southern Hemisphere remained scarce up to the 1970s. - grammar Done
near the Port Arthur convict settlement in 1841. - ref? The reference was earlier in the sentence, not sure if it applies to all. Done

Will finish later. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

Sea level rise in the last 150 years - at some point, this year will have to be changed. Elsewhere in the article, it says "Since X year". Please do the same here Done
but the contributions of the two large ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctica) is expected - shouldn't it be "are expected"? Done
If the rest of the ice returns to the ocean as icebergs and from melting at the edges then the icesheet remains the same mass and does not affect sea level. - please improve sentence structure Done
In terms of heat content, it is the world ocean that dominates the atmospheric climate. - odd sentence structure Done
The oceans store more than 90% of the heat in Earth's climate system and act as a buffer against the effects of climate change. For instance, an average temperature increase of the entire world ocean by 0.01 °C may seem small, but in fact it represents a very large increase in heat content. If all the heat associated with this anomaly was instantaneously transferred to the entire global atmosphere it would increase the average temperature of the atmosphere by approximately 10 °C.[35] Thus, a small change in the mean temperature of the ocean represents a very large change in the total heat content of the climate system. - this all sounds like it's written out of a textbook Done
The additional snowfall causes increased ice flow which leads to further loss of ice. - could you rewrite this? Done
, which holds enough ice to raise global sea levels by 53.3 m. - add ft Done
concluded that East Antarctica is losing significant amounts of ice mass. - the italics seems dramatic. Done
The researcher Eric Rignot - surely he could get a better introduction. He's a professor after all. Done
How big is the Totten Glacier? Might be useful to mention Done

The size of the glacier itself is not really relevant. Relevant is what volume drains through it. Femkemilene (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

0.08 °C per decade and 0.96 °C per decade between 1976 and 2012. - please add Fahrenheit Done
A rapid collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could raise sea level by 3.3 metres (11 ft) at an unknown rate. - if it's at an unknown rate, is it worth mentioning? Done
Most ice on Greenland is part of the Greenland ice sheet which rises to an average of 2.135 kilometres (1.327 mi). The rest of the ice on Greenland is part of isolated glaciers and ice caps. - this is unsourced. Is it part of the following paragraph? If so, make it one paragraph. Done

I think that claim came from different Wikipedia page, which had Encyclopedia Britannica as its source. Google scholar didn't provide a good alternative, so I'm now mentioning maximum height. The precision of that old estimate is completely unjustifiable anyway. Femkemilene (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Average annual ice loss in Greenland more than doubled in the early 21st century compared to the 20th century. - I gotta ask, but the early 21st century and the 20th century could technically be only two years apart. Some more context here would be good.
43% of current sea level rise is due to the Greenland ice sheet, its peripheral glaciers and ice caps. - I think there's a rule somewhere that you're not supposed to start new paragraphs with a number, but more importantly, are you deliberately not using the oxford comma here? Just checking.
1.32 mm per year - units Done

Converting these things to inches looks weird (especially the smaller ones). I heard some people say US English speakers do use mm to subdivide inches? Femkemilene (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, yea, I don't think there's a need if it's below 2 mm, since that is below 0.1 inches, and at that point, the mm is more effective. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Different research has put this threshold value as low as 1.0 °C, and definitely 4.0 °C - Fehrenheit too Done
The roughly 200,000 glaciers on earth are spread out across all continents. - how much mass, or how big of an area, are they? You said 1% vs 99%, but a figure here would be nice.

I will try to find a comparison in terms of area. I am not a big fan of numbers that people can't comprehend. Femkemilene (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think this is a good location not to mention numbers. Article has too many of them as it stands. I think they melt so quickly that if I can find a number, it will be outdated very soon. Femkemilene (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Models

Why isn't the Models section part of Projections? Done (Don't know why I didn't think about this myself)
that in previous IPCC assessments - since you only mentioned it once in the lede, it could be good to spell out the acronym here, especially if you made this paragraph part of the lead for the next section Done

Projections

Why is there a 21st century section? Will there eventually be a section for 20th century projections? IF so, why isn't it there now? (I see it mentions 1978, so my suggestion is remove "21st century" and merge the "Models" paragraph into this section, and don't have a 3rd level sub-header until Long-term rise)

The idea is to have a section on medium-long projections (till 2100) and long-term projections. It's not about when the projections are made. I will change the subsection to Projections for the 21st century.

This could mean rapid sea level rise of up to 19 millimeters per year - units Done
According to the Fourth (2017) National Climate Assessment (NCA) of the United States it is very likely sea level will rise between 30 and 130 cm (1.0 - 4.3 feet) in 2100 compared to the year 2000; and 2.4 m (8 feet) is physically possible but the authors were unable to say how likely. - could you elaborate a bit? Maybe split up the sentence too. Done
There is a widespread consensus that substantial long-term sea-level rise will continue for centuries to come even if the temperature stabilizes.[ - among who? Penguins? Polar bears? Conspiracy theorists? Done
It is thought that - by? If it's a consensus or a group of people, you should identify who holds this view, and by which research. It's probably based on something elsewhere in the article, if I had to guess. Done
Crossing such tipping points implies that ice-sheet changes are potentially irreversible - I don't like that "implies" for an encyclopedia article Done
For Greenland estimates roughly range between 1 and 4 °C - add comma and Fahrenheit Done
Melting of the Greenland ice sheet could contribute an additional 4 to 7.5 m (13 to 25 ft) over many thousands of years.[11] It has been estimated that we are committed to a sea-level rise of approximately 2.3 m (7 ft 7 in) for each degree of temperature rise within the next 2,000 years. - who says this? The "could" is vague, so is "It has been estimate that we..." - you should never refer to the reader in the article, or the collective "we". Done
Warming beyond the 2 °C target - Fahrenheit Done

Regional sea level change

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

up to possibly 25 centimeters per year - inches? Done
So you go from smallest to largest for subsidence? When you say "up to possibly 25 cm", it should instead say the largest first - over 9 m (30 ft) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.. Then you can say "Other regional examples include..."

Here the confusion lies in the difference between total and yearly subsidence.. I dropped the yearly examples (too many examples anyway). Femkemilene (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Effects

Current and future climate change - this article is about sea level rise, not climate change. I suppose you can question its semantics, but I think it should be switched Done
Many of these impacts are detrimental — especially for the three-quarters of the world's poor who depend on agriculture. - I have to ask, is this about climate change or sea level rise? Will the agrticulture of 3/4 of the world's poor be negatively affected by sea level rise? I'm guessing so because of River deltas in Africa and Asia and small island states are particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise. which you say later, but I'm confused by when you mention that. You also mention Asian countries being affected in the next paragraph. Done It might be better to have the effects by areas in the same paragraph.

I do not have access to the source, but judging from the title (Climate shocks: Risk and vulnerability in an unequal world) and common sense, this is about climate change in general. I've struggled with the ordering of information in this section, but I think ordering per effect might be equally good/better than per location. We can't give an exhaustive summation of locations, but we can give a good overview of the types of effect locations might get. Femkemilene (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if following the current trajectory of 3°C. - Fahrenheit Done
This area can be huge as rights extend to a radius of 224 nautical miles (415 km; 258 mi) around the entire island state. - could you find a better way of saying it than "can be huge"? Done

Adaptation

About a quarter of the Netherlands lies beneath sea level, while more than 50% of the nation's area would be inundated by tidal floods if it did not have an extensive levee system. - source? Done
The New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) is an effort to prepare the New York City area for climate change. - you didn't say anything about the NYC panel. The next sentence is about Miami Done
Options that have been proposed to assist island nations to adapt to rising sea level include abandoning islands, building dikes, and "building upwards." - none of this has been ascribed to anyone. Done

Replaced that very old source with examples of adaptation that is actively considered or in place. Femkemilene (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ow wow, thanks for your thorough review. I hope I can finish on the 2nd, might need the 3rd as well. Femkemilene (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. If you're still working on the review, I'll just leave it on hold. I'll only fail it if no work was done after a week. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've now addressed all of your points. I think the article has significantly improved and I hope it is now ready to be a good article :). Thanks again for your very good review. Femkemilene (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for addressing all of this! Great work on the article, I'm happy to pass the article now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]