Talk:Earth's crust

Chart of element abundance appears mis-labeled.
Y-axis in element abundance chart claims it represents "atoms per 10^6 atoms of Si". However, if that's the case, Si itself should have a value of 10^0 (that is, 1). Instead, it has a value of 10^6.

I believe the axis label should be "per atom of Si", unless I'm missing something?


 * I agree. While this is an excellent chart overall, the scaling of the y-axis combined with the label is confusing. The current label makes it unclear if the scale is supposed to be in units of ‘single atoms’ (then Si at 10^6 is correct) or in units of ‘10^6 atoms’ (then Si should be shown at 10^0). The phrase “atoms […] per 10^6 atoms of Si” could be interpreted either way.
 * I believe the intent was the scale to be in atoms, to also indicate that Si was the reference for the scale, and that the reference value was set to 10^6 atoms (not 0 or 1), thus Si is shown at 10^6.
 * The label text “Abundance, atoms of element (relative to 10^6 atoms of Si)”, might be less confusing. Ryojin314159 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

"Allowing"
Allowing in the first paragraph is obscure. Heat is bound to move from hot bodies into space. Eschew participles, and take the space to say exactly what you mean! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Minor conflicting information in geothermal gradient
I just referred to the aforementioned article in the intro, yet apparently they state mildly different values for the increase in temperature/km in Earth's crust.


 * The temperature increases by as much as 30 °C (54 °F) for every kilometer locally

vs


 * temperature rises in about 25–30 °C/km (72–87 °F/mi) of depth near the surface in most of the world

This is a pretty minor issue since it is not horribly inconsistent and both state a different source. However, the latter also includes miles and potentially makes this extra confusing. Thoughts?

-- NetSysFire (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The geothermal gradient varies greatly by region. One seems to be a statement of what the high end of the range is, while the other is a kind of average. So there is no real inconsistency. However, there might be some value in clarifying that these are endpoints/midpoints of a wide range of local values. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, about that undo, my intention was to add an article in the style of a see also. The geothermal gradient article is definitely relevant and should be linked somewhere, preferably near that part mentioning the temperature of the crust but just putting a "(see also: geothermal crust)" is not going to do it I think so I already tried (and failed) to have a brief summary there to link to that article.
 * -- NetSysFire (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)