Talk:Post-glacial rebound

Geology B‑class Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Post-glacial rebound is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Post-glacial rebound was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: September 30, 2007.

From the article: Salmioja "the ditch of the Sound". This is not good. Try "Straitbrook" or "Strait Trench" instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.132.233 (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how post-glacial rebound can cause low gravity regions? As per this article:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11826-satellites-solve-mystery-of-low-gravity-over-canada.html

Isn't the stuff about North and South England only one of a number of causes? The Thames barrier and sinking of London is often attributed to over-pumping from deep wells and the idea that the South of England has to fall because the North rises looks a bit thin? Also the Ice Age reached the Exe-Tees line half way down England and Great Britain is not an island it is Islands. I have taken the "Good Article" tag off until resolved —Preceding unsigned comment added by BozMo (talk • contribs)

The following is a quote from a report by University College London's Benfield Hazard Research Centre [1]:

As if all this was not enough, as will be shown later in this report, in the south east of England the land is sinking due to tectonic tilt caused by post glacial rebound in the north of Britain, which will accelerate relative sea level rise.

Worldtraveller 18:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article delisting

I have decided to delist this article on the grounds that the GA criteria are not met and the article was not reviewed before status was upgraded.

1. Well written?: No problems here.

2. Factually accurate?: There are only three references at the bottom, and although inline links point to sources, inline references are not used. Specific sections are not referenced, and there are no references at all until the paragraph about Finland in the effects section and the paragraph about Great Britiain. These are the only two paragraphs with references. This needs to be rectified to pass GA.

3. Broad in coverage?: Attempts made to cover a range of topics, however I would say needs more on economic effects and so forth, and the legal issues section needs expansion.

4. Neutral point of view?: No problems here, covers a range of situations around the world.

5. Article stability? No problems here.

6. Images?: Could use some better images, but not bad enough to not meet the criteria.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

I am allowing until 30th September for these problems to be fixed before delisting. Max Naylor 11:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As nothing has been done to correct these problems, I am delisting the article. Max Naylor 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inline referencing

I tried one, but I don't see any reference showing up. Can someone make this work properly? Dan Watts (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no citation for claims sea levels have risen due to climate change

neither specifically due to climate, nor that it has risen.

this is not to dispute this, but i think we need evidence here (which i'm sure is available).

124.171.135.186 (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia's own Current_sea_level_rise page doesn't show any significant change in the rate of sea level rise in the past century - as such, the claim should really be stricken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.241.254 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something that's been fairly flat for the last 8k years suddenly jumps up 20 cm in the past 100 and that's no change? Extending 20 cm/century back over the last 8k years would have pushed the level up by 16 meters. Hcobb (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? got something to back that claim up? Sea level rise looks very constant... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.55.164 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is nonsense

I don't believe in that. The increase of about 2.3 ms/cy can be explaind perfectly by conversation of angular momentum and the observation, that the distance of the moon increases about 4 cm each year. 95.222.228.77 (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that again. Sorry, but guess I was mistaken. The sea water contributes considerable to the Earth's moment of inertia. That means the moment of interia is really measurable reduced by ice mass close to the poles (near the axis of rotation). --95.222.228.77 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

The section "Earth's rotation" is quite doubtful from the very beginning, starting from attribution of Earth rotation irregularities to ancient Chinese and Babylonian astronomers. But the theory about rotation axis is the worst. There were several glaciation in Pleistocene, so we should consider effect of which? Or, maybe, of all combined? The article true polar wander does not provide any figures for Earth (such as 1 degree per Myr), any plots or graphs, even unreferenced ones. It even does not give an intelligible definition of the phenomena – if the lithosphere is subject to plate tectonics and rotation axis is subject to precession, then what reference should we use for this wander? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GIA and LOD

Those who say nonsense to GIA effect on LOD only reveal their total ignorance. There are plenty of refences out there--pull your heads out and look them up! Take a refresher course in freshman physics! I would only point out that no million year polar wander can be safely extrapolated from current observation. --AGF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.104.162 (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]