Talk:Sea level rise/Archives/2012/4
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
include reference with [better source needed]?
- 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)
- 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)
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, 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.
- Modern-day sea level rise skyrocketing Increase began with the Industrial Revolution; July 2011 Science News