Eisspeedway

Talk:Future sea level

agree

I agree this article shows clear bias and doesn't comport with statements in the overview at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.67.167 (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is critical in broadening understanding of the potentially most damaging impact from warming. The article best serves if free of the charge of bias. I urge the above to negotiate your differences and edit to strengthen neutrality. On a related matter, is there a way to add a new section concerning reduction of greenhouse gas as the primary mechanism for slowing sea rise without igniting controversy and charges of disputed point of view? Crodney (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map

This article could use a map showing coastal topology and which areas would be inundated under which scenarios. -- Beland (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existing map (showing 6m sea level effect in red colour) is a misleading graphic - it looks like areas where the coastline is variegated have bled together into a large red mass, making it look like those are flat areas near the sea which will be inundated. For example - the coastline of Norway, Patagonia, Alaska - none of these areas are low-lying, yet they look pretty much the same as Holland, which is largely flat land.101.166.163.182 (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

See discussion here Talk:Sea_level_rise#Consolidated_merge_threads prokaryotes (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

This article sounded quite biased upon first reading, so I just added a POV tag and noticed that several editors already complained above. The text mostly refers to alarmist studies from the 2007–2009 time frame; it is structured like an essay, with repetitive arguments and a "conclusion". It makes relatively benign changes of a few millimeters per year sound unprecedented and catastrophic. Needs lots of trimming, balancing coverage with more recent and more diverse sources, and indeed a merger with the more comprehensive Sea level rise article. — JFG talk 07:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: I don't mind the tag, but would note that catastrophism is normal, due, and neutral POV when talking about catastrophes. Global warming is an unprecedented event in the history of mankind. We are talking of ice melting at an average temperature slightly above 0°C, on a planet where the poles are quite singular, in the sense that continental shelves preclude convective water flows (analogous to Hadley Cells) which makes for non-uniform temperature and hence even harder previsions. 1m previsions are extremely careful, inasmuch as ice melting is either not considered, or considered by linear extrapolation of present-day measurements. Quoting Pfeffer et al. (cited in the article) who make one such prediction:

Accurate [sea level rise] SLR forecasts on the century time scale are imperative for planning constructive and cost-effective responses. Underestimates will prompt inadequate preparation for change, whereas overestimates will exhaust and redirect resources inappropriately. Raising California Central Valley levees only 0.15 m, for example, will cost over $1 billion (13); the nonlinearly ncreasing costs of raising levees 2 m or more without clear and compelling cause would entail enormous expenditures otherwise used for different responses as demanded by a smaller but still significant SLR.[1]

However, ice calving and melting is also non-linear, as anyone can experience, as it depends not only on the temperature but also on the shape of glaciers and their surroundings. See this, for example. The antarctic ice sheet alone has a potential of more than 50m SLR (see bedmap2 studies, cited in that article). Hence, I think, what is difficult to explain is how come the sea would only rise 1m when the ice melts. How long would it take to melt a half of it if it were at the equator? Quoting Pfeffer et al. again:

We considered four scenarios: velocities were calculated for both the “marine-based” gate (170 km 2 ) and the “total aggregate” gate (290 km 2 ) given both projected [surface mass balance] SMB and 10× inflated SMB losses. We then considered whether those velocities are realistic.[1]

Their extremely cautious way of reasoning is to consider "realistic" what is within a reasonable 10× factor from observation. On the one hand, that's totally flawed for non-linear phenomena. On the other hand, there are no known established models for the specific phenomenon. Thus they lean on linear factors to discriminate between likely and possible. For more detail:

The scenario velocities far exceed the fastest motion exhibited by any Greenland outlet glacier. For example, the near-doubling of ice discharge from Jakobshavn Glacier in 2004–2005 was associated with an acceleration to 12.6 km/year (7). Similarly, a temporary 80% increase in the speed near the terminus of Kangerdlugssuaq produced a velocity of 14.6 km/year (6). A comparison of calculated (Table 2) and observed (1.23 km/year) average velocities shows that calculated values for a 2m SLR exceed observations by a factor of 22 when considering all gates and inflated SMB and by a factor of 40 for the marine gates without inflated SMB, which we consider to be the more likely scenario. With the exception of discharge through all gates at inflated SMB (26.8 km/year), none of the velocity magnitudes shown in Table 2 has ever been observed anywhere, even over short time periods.[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ale2006 (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ a b c Pfeffer; et al. "Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise". Science Mag. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1= (help)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Future sea level. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10-year update

I recently tagged this article as requiring a major update 10 years after its main sources were originally written. My tag explanation:

Most of this article was written based on conclusions from the IPCC report of 2007 and followup studies of 2008. Ten years later, where are we standing? Does actual sea level change track projections? Has new research produced updated projections? Do we better understand the impact of various factors influencing global sea level? Have new phenomena been taken into account?

Many thanks to Femkemilene for taking up the challenge and starting the work. I'm opening this discussion so that interested editors can participate and document article improvement efforts. — JFG talk 07:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a drastic approach to make the article only treat future sea level, so I will continue deleting large portions of the text or moving them to more appropriate articles. Feel free to start discussions if you don't agree. I think a slimmer article is easier to keep updated and more useful for people interested in the topic. Femkemilene (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I removed an off-topic essay-like section this morning. — JFG talk 08:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, needs doing! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the main text, I've now deleted most/all of the old research into past sea level. I might add a bit of information contrasting past and future sea level rise. I'm now corresponding with some researchers asking them to provide data to make more up to date figures for the article. After that, I'm done. Femkemilene (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as you probably know, we are encouraged to make and submit graphics but at the graphic's page the information in the graphic still has to be reliably sourced. If researches provide unpublished data, I don't think your work product would pass WP:VERIFICATION. But if they point you to published stuff, just be sure to include the citation in the image metadata NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting the data from published research, no worries here. I'm asking for data and not the the figures, because they are usually a bit too complicated for a general audience and I prefer simplified figures. Also, with their permission, I'd like to publish them under a copyleft license. Femkemilene (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Question... "copyleft"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
copyleft. Basically as free as possible usage of produced work. Depends on journal where research was published and researchers to what extent this is possible. Femkemilene (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I use CC licenses but didn't know the general term, thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_sea_level