Talk:Sea level rise/Archive 2

Politics
This issue has become politicized and because of this, wikipedia needs to be more careful than usual to maintain neutrality and objectivity on this issue.

The discussion in this seems biased to me in that some significant evidence of gain in mass of some of the Antarctic ice sheet exists, and the images presented in the body of the article seem to depict that the ice sheet is in all places either losing mass, and shows no net gain anywhere. The below referenced papers from respectable academic sources indicate the facts are otherwise. At the very least wikipedia needs to reference the fact that this information (that ice mass loss is not uniform but no net gain takes place in any wide areas of Antarctica) is disputed among academics in this field.

Royal Society Newsletter

"Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet" D. J. WINGHAM, A. SHEPHERD, A. MUIR, AND G. J. MARSHALL:  Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2006) 364, 1627–1635

The conclusions of the last paper are very interesting in that large areas of the ice sheet is gaining mass about as fast as the other large areas are losing it, with net zero (within measurement error) effect on sea level rise.

My position is that the wiki article should be edited to reflect this dispute, and that the data and conclusions of the latter paper (graphics if permitted by copyright) should also be included as opinion of some researchers in this area that some areas of the Antarctic Ice sheet are gaining mass, and that the loss of ice in Antarctica cannot be a significant factor in observed sea level rise to date.

Montestruc (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).-Shahab (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Greenland Ice sheet melting
I've rewritten a little of the section, reflecing current knowledge. Previously, it was believed that melting would be slow, probably occur on a millenium scale or more. Things have changed in very recent years. The most recent major publication discussing the subject is the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, which says in the summary that the melting will occur 'over centuries'. Elsewhere in various public media articles (see linked) it's mentioned that researchers now believe that it may occur in much less than a millennium. Jens Nielsen 21:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't believe this, and I wish you would cite your sources more precisely. Looking at http://amap.no/acia/Highlights.pdf I find:


 * ...sea level is projected to rise 10 to 90 centimeters this century...
 * This century yes, but we're talking about long-term changes here. Have a look at Chapter 6 of the scientific report. I'll quote it sometime i get around to it.
 * Errm, if they are taking their line in the summary from the TAR, it would be odd to take a different line elsewhere. Note that you directed me to the summary before, now to chapter 6. William M. Connolley 22:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, looked at chapter 6, can't see it. How about you actually quote the relevant text, or perhaps provide a page number - the thing is 100's of pages, "see chapter 6" is deplorably vague. William M. Connolley 22:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC).
 * this is exactly from the TAR, not new. Where do you see this "new" stuff coming from? Please provide some actual refs, not a vague "see linked". William M. Connolley 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC).
 * Please take the trouble to read the links i provided in this article, or those in the Greenland Ice Sheet. If still not satisfied, I'll look up again. Jens Nielsen 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you could provide just *one* reliable one, here. William M. Connolley 22:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC).
 * Second that. Mostlyharmless 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll add some info. First off, I see you like to have quotes to specific scientific articles. It's a witness of high standards, but I think it fair enough (often even better) to quote major reports or reviews broaching the subject. That's why I picked the ACIA, to me appearing the best source pick until AR4 comes. From there, I think it is reasonable to expect scientists to look up the specific research behind those findings themselves, which is why I have not been eager to do that myself. But of course, the burden is on thge wikipedia editor (me) to quote them properly.

The 'most recent' findings I referred to were roughly these, from research by Eric Rignot et. al. It's from a BBC article, as I do not have free access to the Science Magazine article where the research was published.
 * Previous estimates suggested it would take many hundreds of years for the Greenland ice sheet to melt completely. The new data will cut this timescale, but by how much is uncertain.

The ACIA says the following (summary, pdf page 39, section "The importance of thresholds"
 * "The onset of the long-term melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is an example of a threshold that is likely to be crossed this century. Climate models project that local warming in Greenland will exceed 3 degrees Celcius during this century. Ice sheet models project that a warming of that magnitude would initiate the long-term melting of the Greenland ice sheet. Even if climatic conditions then stabilized, an increase of this magnitude is projected to lead eventually (over centuries) to a virtually complete melting of the Greenland Ice sheet, resulting in a global sea level rise of about seven meters"

I hope this meets the gentlemen's standards for a reliable source/quote.

Though the first one is only a newspaper article, these two together seems to me good enough support for the 'centuries' statement, though I am open to further comments and won't pretend to know all research on the subject. If any of you have access to Science magazine, please get a quote from the full text of the relevant paper. As for the chapter 6 of the ACIA scientific report, I had only a brief look at it, but I assume that the matter is explored in more detail there. I will look into it later, or leave you to do so in the meanwhile. Jens Nielsen 16:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The BBC one is useless. This is generic journalism, and as usual is poor for science. It was thought the entire Greenland ice sheet could melt in about 1,000 years... is wrong for a start; and the text doesn't get any better. The ACIA quote is very vague too: it says "over centuries" but not how many. Melting "over centuries" is *not* the same as *several centuries*. Also, I see no support for this from chapter 6. As you said From there, I think it is reasonable to expect scientists to look up the specific research behind those findings themselves, which is why I have not been eager to do that myself.: anything in the ACIA summary should be backed up by the appropriate chapter, but its not. The appropriate pages from chapter 6 would be 207 and 233, but there is nothing there, except ACIA quoting IPCC. I conclude that ACIA has no new results past IPCC.


 * So, onto some real science. Greve, R., 2000: On the response of the Greenland ice sheet to greenhouse climate change. Clim. Change, 18 46, 283-289. got substantial retreat within 1000 years for seasonally uniform warmings > 3 oC; Ridley, J.K., Huybrechts, P., Gregory, J.M. and Lowe, J.A. Elimination of the Greenland ice sheet in a high CO2 climate. Journal of Climate, 18, 3409–3427, 2005 with constant 4×CO2 in HadCM3 coupled to a Greenland ice sheet model: after 3000 years the warming reached 18°C and only 4% of the original volume remained. Thats 4*CO2, sfc warming of 18 oC, and *still* not all gone in 3kyr. More about that at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/adcc/BookCh4Jan2006.pdf. I'm restoring "millenia". William M. Connolley 16:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll accept your correction, as neither I could find any substantiation of the statement from the scientific background report, and of course I still don't have access to the new science magazine article. However, I suspect that there must be something to the claim. I find it straining my credulity that not just the BBC (including many others) but also and especially a reputed major publication would be off by an order of magnitude on such an important issue. Whoever has access to the full articles of Science magazine please check if a claim to a less-than-millennium melt is supported in the article? Jens Nielsen 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that neither the science article in Science, nor the accompanying news article in the same issue address the issue of melt over the next 1000 years. I'm including quotations from each that come the closest to addressing the issue:


 * Changes in the Velocity Structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet, Rignot and Kanagaratnamin (doi:10.1126/science.1121381):


 * If more glaciers accelerate farther north, especially along the west coast, the mass loss from Greenland will continue to increase well above predictions.


 * The Greenland Ice Sheet and Global Sea-Level Rise (doi:10.1126/science.1124190):
 * In a warming world, it is likely that the contribution to sea-level rise from Greenland is set to grow further, assuming that the observed acceleration in outlet-glacier velocities is sustained, with possible increases in precipitation providing the only prospect of short-term amelioration.


 * In interviews Rignot has stated that he believes that the estimates for time required for total melt will have to be revised, but no models have been published to confirm his conjecture.Leuliett 23:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My impression (but I admit I cannot substantiate this, so I will make no attempt to add it!) is that its pretty well impossible to deglaciate Greenalnd via increased glacier flow on any kind of plausible timescale - the dynamics just don't allow it. William M. Connolley 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll inquire a bit further, as I'm still not quite satisfied. If what Rignot above says is right, we could be talking about centuries rather than millennia. Perhaps we'll have to wait a year or two, see if the claim solidifies. Jens Nielsen 07:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Greenland has a volume of ~2.6*106 km3, the present mass balance deficit is 220 km3 per year (Rignot and Kanagaratnamin 2006). At which rate it would take ~10,000 years to deglaciate.  To do it in under 1000 years, would require sustained rates at least an order of magnitude greater than present.  Maybe that's possible, but it is by no means obvious.  For what it is worth though James Hansen is also of the opinion that the ability for Greenland to change is being underestimated.  Dragons flight 08:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (Rignot and Kanagaratnamin 2006).apparently conclude that the net current mass/ice balance is much lower than hitherto thought (net -96 km3/yr in 1996 to -220 km3/yr in 2005 versus -44 Gt/yr in IPCC TAR). If so, the future melting models should be adjusted accordingly, which apparently has not happened. That it would 'only' melt in 10k years at current speed is not very informative, as we know it will accelerate.Jens Nielsen 09:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Some details that seem to relate to how fast the ice sheet could melt follows from some review of ponding affecting the ice flow - I don't see any comment about ponding affecting our understanding of ice sheet or ice shelf behavior in the article and suggest something be included. To underscore the role of ponding see

Then consider other effects of ponding in Greenland - Moreover the whole area of catastrophic changes related to ponding (even whole lakes) breaking ice dams is covered in Missoula Floods. The situation is certainly different than in the Antarctic and Greenland, but the potential for large scale changes exist.--Smkolins (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Larsen B Ice Shelf Collapses in Antarctica "a theory of how the ice disintegrates... the presence of ponded melt water on the surface... is the main process responsible for the Peninsula shelf disintegrations."
 * Surface Melt-Induced Acceleration of Greenland Ice-Sheet Flow Originally published in Science Express on 6 June 2002, Science 12 July 2002: Vol. 297. no. 5579, pp. 218 - 222 "The near coincidence of the ice acceleration with the duration of surface melting, followed by deceleration after the melting ceases... provides a mechanism for rapid, large-scale, dynamic responses of ice sheets to climate warming."
 * Evolution of melt pond volume on the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L03501, "estimating the depth and hence volume of surface melt ponds... show large intra- and interannual changes in ponded water volumes, and large volumes of liquid water stored in extensive slush zones."
 * I've begun discussing the effects of ponding and ice shelf disintegrations at meltwater and melt ponds. They could both be expanded with some of the content discussed above. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion taken - thanks!--Smkolins (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Transgression (geology)
The article Transgression (geology) is a stub which does not appear to cover anything distinct from this article. I suggest Transgression (geology) become a redirect here.  Randall Bart    Talk   18:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This article is already very long and a lot of it is about current climate change. The geology article (when someone gets around to expanding it from a stub) should be much more about what a marine transgressions (and regressions), which I think are more commonly isostatic, look like in the geological record, past examples etc. Pterre (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the water?
Dear all. This figure is used in several articles in Wikipedia. It suggests that during about 250 of the last 500 million years sea level was 100 m (or more) higher than present day. But it is usually accepted that melting all of Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets (which represent the essential of continental water, as I understood) would yield a sea level rise of 60-70 m. So here is a naive question: where did the water go? (Or does the figure reflect a methodological flaw in the Exxon curve?)


 * Click on the image and read the second paragraph from the end of the description. The oceans changed. –  SEWilco (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A large part of sea level rise is due to thermal expansion of the oceans. In addition to that isostatic rebounding and subsidence will make the change relative to location. Since there are synergetic effects its likely that the rate of change will change. 69.39.100.2 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

New Sea Level Rise Visualization
I won't express any opinion on whether it should be in the article, but I feel like sharing the Sea Level Rise Explorer that I have recently created. Like Alex Tingle's Flooding Maps it is a Google Maps Application that uses elevation data to show vulnerabilities. Dragons flight (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the combustion process missing source of unbalanced 1.5mm/year sea-level rise
Is anyone aware of an academic journal source (or need a masters thesis idea) for the quantity of water produced per year through the combustion process and where the end state of this water is. I completed the stoichiometry and calculated moles, then volume of water produced, then distributed this across the global surface area of water, it equals 1.5mm of sea-rise per year, the same as this article claims is from some unknown continental source "Sea level rise Uncertainties and criticisms regarding IPCC results". Here is what I have that is citable: Wikipedia source of stoichiometry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion, web source http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/31/sea-levels-may-rise-5-feet-by-2100/ and that the IPCC makes no mention of combustion and notes that current models do not balance with empirical measurements by 1.5mm/year. Granite07 (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Even with the pessimistic assumption that one is burning methane and hence gets 2 molecules H2O for every molecule of CO2 then 8 GtC/yr translates to 24 GtH2O / yr which as a liquid would raise sea level 0.067 mm / yr. The reason the IPCC ignores combustion is because it is a neglible source of water.  Dragons flight (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to correct my calculations. When time permits I must recreate yours. Granite07 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the intro statement, so bite me
The introduction contained an outright statement mainly as a result of human-induced global warming. When I moved to edit this, I found a warning -


 * Do not remove this statement, even if you disagree with it.

Well, I do disagree with it, but that is not why I changed it. Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear - there is a difference between a statement of fact and a statement of a belief or an assertion. The statement that human-induced global warming is the main inducer of observed rises in sea level is an assertion only, regardless of the sources cited in support. Face it; mathematics is an exact science, climatology is not.

So I changed it to widely attributed to human-induced global warming, which is a more true statement that does not subtract from the intended message of the introduction and for which the reference source is still appropriate.

As for the inline comment in the article text ... it's an act of desperation. It will never deter an actual vandal.


 * Only maths is true, how true. But we don't put "widely believed to be spheroid" in the geodesy page William M. Connolley (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone else changed the text, which I wrongly referred to as vandalism in my edit summary - sorry about that. The fact of the matter is, as backed up by citations in the article, the observed effects are impossible to explain without including human activity in models. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Carlson
The recent edit on the lead paragraph by User:Andrewjlockley cites a New Scientist article that paraphrases a scientific article that states that sea levels could rise by up to 3 meters per century. I suggest that this should not be on wikipedia for the following reasons, many of which are paraphrased from the study by Tad Pfeffer and others, Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise: They put their upper constraint on reasonable sea level rise at 80 cm in the next century because of glacial flow.
 * 1) One major limit to the rate of sea level rise is the rate at which glaciers can flow. Even if it heats up, the ice can't get far enough below the ELA and to the coasts to keep delivering water
 * 2) A second major constraint is the coastal perimeter over which ice can enter: the shoreline of Greenland, for example, is small compared to that occupied by the Laurentide Ice Sheet

The big deal, as far as I can see, is just that the Laurentide deglaciation was of a larger magnitude, with twice as much ice overall, and with a larger shoreline over which that ice could be discharged. If we normalize to the amount of ice (not the greatest way to analyze, but makes a point), Carlson et al.'s rate of sea level rise is cut in half.

As a minor note, stylistically, who Carlson is should be established before/if his name is mentioned offhand in the article.

So until this is resolved, I suggest that the addition be removed from the article, and be added again with information that uses both paleoclimate, paleo-ice sheet evolution, and the limitations provided by glacier dynamics.

Awickert (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Andrewjlockley added a caveat based on the other work: see our respective talk pages for the conversation. I may still feel inclined to edit it, as I'm not 100% sure it's good for the lead section and/or it's worded in the best way - other contribution/comments appreciated. Awickert (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording in the lead paragraph, as well as performing a number of edits in hopes of greater clarity - it seemed really choppy to me when I first read it. Awickert (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Islands again
I didn't find very convincing. The cnn piece on the Carteret is clearly trash: all is says is that the islands blame their woes on GW. The PNG is backed by the report, but is cherry picking. The same report sez that trends less than 20y aren't good, and PNG is less than 20y William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * William, thanks. I agree that the CNN piece was weak (wouldn't expect any less from them actually), and I share a concern that the language be cautious and not prematurely state that the evidence is definitive, because it isn't. At the same time, 1. the story about the Carterets is out there, approaching the level of media exposure  that Tuvalu has recieved; 2. regional tidal gauge data are certainly suggestive, though as you correctly point out, not dispositive; and 3. all this is consistent with IPCC projections. There is clearly also legitimate reason to suspect that subsidence and/or erosion may be at least equally likely, but this isn't about OR, it's about what's known. (Not accusing anyone of OR, just reminding that it's a boundary.) As I work in the region I can report there is increasing awareness (and questions) among the public about what is happening there and why. In short, it's a big deal. Do you not think there is a way to find neutral language discussing the Carterets and indicates these facts while making clear there is still significant ambiguity? Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. to further clarify: given the level of tidal inundation in the Carterets, it seems self-evident that it is sufficiently large that steric SLR could not possibly be the primary factor; something else has to be going on as well. Arjuna (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably there should be a nice article about the situation of the islands. But it should be supported by good facts, not CNN. If you want to use CNN as a source, it can only be to support statements like "the media has talked about..." or "some islanders have experssed the view that..." and it needs to be clear that the science is elsewhere.
 * The tide gauge stuff: why pick out PNG? Its not going under water any time soon... why is one (short) tide gauge in PNG worth picking out above one in, say, Liverpool? Regional variation of SLR is quite interesting, but in that case you need a nice analysis of the various gauges, or perhaps just the nice map that the same report contains - thats far more useful William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sea-level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands by John A. Church (et al.) 2006 say "Our best estimate of relative sea-level rise at Funafuti, Tuvalu is 2 ± 1 mm yr− 1 over the period 1950 to 2001." I sugest that this is added to the part about Tuvalu. Gipset (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Intro
In the intro it says "However, models of glacial flow in the smaller present-day ice sheets show that a probable maximum value for sea level rise in the next century is 80 centimeters, based on limitations on how quickly ice can flow below the equilibrium line altitude and to the sea." However that is not as I understand the paper http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5894/1340 which say "We consider glaciological conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude that increases in excess of 2 meters are physically untenable" so the 80 centimeters should be changed to 2 meters or the text should be changed, agree?

The text from the intro should also be in the "future sea level rise"?

Gipset (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Melting ice caps lower sea level?
Just thinking out loud here, but since ice is less dense than water, when ice melts the water takes up less space than the ice did. Wouldn't the ice caps melting lower the sea level instead of raise it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.151.226 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes for floating sea ice (eg Arctic Ocean). No for land-based icecaps (eg Greenland and Antarctic). Pterre (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm thinking out loud too - several complications including long-term isostatic rebound of the land after the weight of the ice has gone, continuing thermal expansion of the melt water, etc. But the main point is climate-related sea-level rise is mainly about land-based ice melting, not about floating ice melting, plus thermal expansion of the water already in the oceans. Pterre (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For floating sea ice, melting is neutral to the sea level, since the part above the surface contributes also. People worry that ice that melts would stop reflecting sunlight, heating the ocean and melting more water. But even if a lot of arctic sea ice melts, that would not raise the sea level. Instead it would increase moisture, which would give more snow over Greenland, adding to its ice cap? The ongoing isostatic rebound in the subarctic areas (Canada, Scandinavia, Russia etc) should raise the sea level elsewhere shouldn't it? --BIL (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, isostatic rebound is a few mm per year over a small part of the ocean, so it should not contribute so much. --BIL (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Melting sea-based ice caps actually cause a net rise in sea levels, but this is rather insignificant and partly due to the associated thermal expansion. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 18:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Update on science
The issue of sea level rie was the lead topic at the climate congress, based on Stefan Rahmstorf's work. This predicted a rise of approx 1m which seems to be the current 'best guess' (I didn't hear much significant dissent at the meeting). I think the whilst the lead mentions this range, it suggests that this is not the most likely outcome. We should be firmer on the ~1m range.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the addition, for the obvious reason. -Atmoz (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Relaying a complaint


A scientist has written to me off-wiki to point out that the first plot at right is partially crap. It shows an approximately +10 m sea level excursion in the last 10 thousand years. No such global event occurred. A few locations near former ice sheets saw multi-meter swings due to crustal relaxation after the ice was removed, but the globe as a whole certainly did not have a large positive excursion. Compare to the second plot, which includes specific data on global sea level change from sites far from ice sheets.

He also complained that as a general matter our discussions on sea level often do a poor job of distinguishing between eustatic (i.e. global) sea level change and local changes due to crustal movement, such as occur in Scandinavia and Denmark. Dragons flight (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've removed it. Its from a WP:RS (ncdc) but doesn't appear to have any info about how it was generated William M. Connolley (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the distinction between local and eustatic sea level rise, perhaps the article should be moved to 'Current global sea level rise'? Although that's beginning to become quite wordy.  It's probably worth making the distinction clearer, though. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  01:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

New predictions
In march 2009, during the Kopenhagen conference, it was stated that the sea level rise would be higher; namely 1 meter by the end of this century. Info from science in action BBC podcoast march 12 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.167.232 (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 for 1. I removed the addition, for the same obvious reason as above. -Atmoz (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Stating facts is not a breach of WP:NOT. What, therefore is the 'obvious reason'? The current lead suffers badly from being wrong.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't clear that there was a great deal of new science from Copenhagen, or indeed any at all. Certainly, there was no assert that SLR *would* be 1m. Anyway, don't report press froth, certainly not podcasts, unless you enjoy being reverted. Papers, as usual, are welcomed. If you haven't seen the transcript of the closing plenary, it is available via this spam.
 * However, I do think we should revisit "Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of the next century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm": Current SLR is ~2-3 mm/yr. 90mm over the next century is absurdly low. And we should probably make it clearer that this "prediction" excludes ice sheet unexpectedness William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW Rahmstorf's concluding slide said SLR "may well exceed" 1 m by 2100, not a definite statement that it would be 1 m or more. I agree that 90 mm is impossibly low but to my knowledge there's no documented consensus that the value be disregarded. (Anybody know which model came up with 90 mm?) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're going to talk about ice sheets, I think that this would be a good place for the gravity work discussed at the Global Warming talk page. Although it's new work, calculating gravity, while complex, is pretty unambiguous, so if we can assume they didn't mess up (which I do: the 1st author is really good at this), I think that it would be an additional important consequence of "oops, there goes the ice sheet". Awickert (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, the Rahmstorf work reflects current state of the art. I cited the actual presentation not a secondary source, and I've gone to the climate congress office to ask for the full paper, if it's available.  There really isn't any point this article worshipping various sources that are now known to be completely wrong.  I'm all for being conservative, but I'd prefer the WP wasn't full of out-of-date science.  Our first responsibility is to the truth.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "As far as I'm concerned" isn't good enough; you're not an authority with the recognized stature of IPCC. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:TRUTH. Vsmith (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming to be an authority, I'm simply stating that Rahmstorf IS an authority. He was heavily involved in the IPCC process, and is now taking the very sensible step of pointing out that its results were wrong.  I know the WP editors just luuuurve IPCC AR4, but sadly it's not actually right in this, and many other aspects.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Old talk
The previous first paragraph was misleading; Global Warming is one of the ways in which sea level can rise. SIDE NOTE: Even though the major causes of Global Warming and sea level rise can still be debated, it is a measured fact that these phenomenon have, and are currently occuring. maveric149

From old ToDo subpage:

Need to add the following info:
 * 1) Current IPCC data
 * 2) Introductory mention of increases and decrseases in sea level in geologic history (Trans/re-gressions)
 * 3) Those areas that are the most vulnerable (Islands, S. Florida, Bangladesh etc.)
 * 4) Drowning of estuaries/mashes which will be blocked from migrating inland because of human settlement.


 * See also : Sea level rise

I don't think the first paragraph should assert that sea level rise is caused by global warming. Let's postpone discussion of causes till the second or third paragraph.

I suggest we first define sea level rise, then discuss its consequences (such as coastal flooding and island evacuation) and talk about causes for the remainder of the article. --Uncle Ed 18:05 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * Site note 3 doesn't contain anything pertaining to human-induced global warming causing SLR that I can find. Perhaps I'm overlooking it? Traumatic (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The intro para should be fairly self-contained. Therefore some mention of causes should be presented. But after the intro para the scheme you propose looks good. --mav 20:18 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

I want to make very sure I understand you, Mav, because I respect you above almost anyone else on Wikipedia (you da man!). Are you saying we should take out the "caused by global warming" thing from the first paragraph, as I suggest? Something like:

''Sea levels have been rising slowly but steadily for centuries, causing coastal areas to be flooded and even some island atolls to disappear. The average rise is X mm/year, for a total rise of Y from 18XX to 19XX.''

''The effects on coastal communities has been blah blah blah. The following islands have been entirely evacuated: A, B, C, ...''

Causes of the rise include...

--Uncle Ed


 * No not really. All I am saying is that the intro should also serve as a summary of the major points in the article. Global warming as a cause of sea level rise, is such a major point. This article also needs to be general in a geologic sense: Far greater rises in sea level have occurred in the geologic past (if I remember correctly, the last great rise in sea level happened 24 million years ago. The leading theory for that, was a sudden and large increase in atmospheric CO2 levels possibly from methane hydrates). What we really should be doing is describing the various phenomenon that cause changes in sea level. Focussing on only sea level rise misses the big picture of climate change (global warming is in the same boat). Some factors besides CO2 that effect sea level: Isotasy (esp. the rebound of continents after the weight burden of continental glaciers has been removed), differences in the geomorphology of the ocean basins (esp. the presence or absence of deep trenches), the amount of sediment coming from continents and being deposited on the ocean floor, etc. I really think all this should be in a general sea level article. The detail can and should then be spun-off as soon as that article got too long. --mav 21:43 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 18:58, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I have now added a piccy to act as overall summary; and a brief summary too. Data from IPCC TAR.

As a person who hates when things take political stances, I have to ask if you could just get rid of the man part of the statement. Even a most likely would show a general assumption but not a whole consensous(Sp?) of the people. After all, an estimated 20% of people don't believe global warming is caused by man. Just lose the endoresment(Sp?) please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.85.199 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Altimetry
The first graph which adds satellite data to tide gauge data seems misleading to me, implying two independent data sets. Satellite altimetry is actually calibrated from tide gauge data and is not independent. Is there a graph of just the tide gauge data that could be put there? Thanks for your considerations MarkC (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Um. I don't see how removing the satellite altimetry helps. Nor am I particularly convinced it is dependent: one puzzle, after all, is that the altimetry produces different results to tide gauges William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The small differences probably reside in how tide data is transferred to the calibration of the altimeter -which may be just a small region the sat. flies over. When tide gauge data is not used directly, the satellite is calibarated to instruments on the ground and, the height of the ground is from surveys referenced to tide gauges (giving MSL)... So satellites do not give independent data since orbital decay etc. is calibrated from the earth based reference which is derived from MSL. MarkC (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplication
Why do we have 2 ests from satellites in the lede ? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Took a rate out, put another one in, hopefully the wording is better. Feel free to axe one if the two if you want; they're close to one another. Awickert (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening claim is not supported by article referenced
The intro claim "mainly as a result of human-induced global warming.[3]" cites an article wich does not support that claim.

In fact - only 10 years of the centry that the above "mainly as a result" phrase refers to is mentioned in the report, and the report says this (page 387):- " It is unknown whether the higher rate in 1993 to 2003 is due to decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend. "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.137.129 (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed "mainly" to "in part." The components of sea level rise aren't known with sufficient accuracy for attribution studies to determine whether the rise is mostly natural or anthropogenic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The "in part: is clumsy so I refined it to "is partly due to" hope y'all approve. Cheers MarkC (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Austrlian section
The link to the RS report is broken -can someone fix it or should it be deleted? if the latter, I suggest the mean figure from the 32 stations be given = 0.9mm/yr Cheers MarkC (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Predicted sea levels rise
I edited the statement "due to human-induced global warming,[5] which will increase sea level ..." to say "due to human-induced global warming,[5] which is predicted to increase sea level ...". This was reverted by WMC. I think this is an inappropriate reversion/edit. There is no certainty in science and the prediction. Can we not be honest, for example it is possible that in 80 years sea levels may start to fall due to some other effect or anthropogenic warming may stop etc. -we simply do not know the future with certainty and any scientist should know why certainty is not established until observation has taken place. Shame on you WMC, please let Wiki educate, not provide hubris. Cheers MarkC (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * for example it is possible that in 80 years sea levels may start to fall due to some other effect - no, we can't include unsupported speculation such as that; see WP:CRYSTAL. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't be silly, I'm pointing out here (in talk) that future sea level rise is a prediction -to say otherwise is incorrect. Editors need to be honest and it IS a prediction supported by the IPCC. Saying sea level _will_ rise for 100 years or more is not correct. If you don't like "predict" then say "may" Cheers MarkC (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically the IPCC doesn't make predictions :-). For future T rises, I'm happy to use language like "is expected to" or somesuch. SLR is sufficiently certain that using "is predicted to" is unnecessary William M. Connolley (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you may say they don't make predictions but that word is used in their report (e.g. see title). I'd be happier with "expected to" to convey the onus being on the IPCC but the word expected is repeated in the next part. So, since they use the word predicted why not use it here? If not then how about "may" or is "likely to" or "probably will". You choose. Cheers MarkC (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you quote the bit you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * here is a clear satement of some of the uncertainty (I thought this was your field):"10.6.5 Projections of Global Average Sea Level Change for the 21st Century Table 10.7 and Figure 10.33 show projected changes in global average sea level under the SRES marker scenarios for the 21st century due to thermal expansion and land ice changes based on AR4 AOGCM results (see Sections 10.6.1, 10.6.3 and 10.6.4 for discussion). The ranges given are 5 to 95% intervals characterising the spread of model results, but we are not able to assess their likelihood in the way we have done for temperature change (Section 10.5.4.6), for two main reasons. First, the observational constraint on sea level rise projections is weaker, because records are shorter and subject to more uncertainty. Second, current scientific understanding leaves poorly known uncertainties in the methods used to make projections for land ice (Sections 10.6.3 and 10.6.4)."


 * I suggest changing the text to "....global warming, which by a variety of mechanisms, is projected to increase sea level over the next centuary and beyond ." MarkC (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Cheers
 * So you're abandoning the idea that it is a prediction? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all, but I'm trying to meet you half way (in the interest of resolution), I think we both know its a prediction but you, for your own reasons, don't seem to like the clearer statement of fact. So, can we agree on the above wording please? Cheers MarkC (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi WMC, given the quote about uncertainty, is the above wording not a more accurate yet succinct summary of Chapter 10 and can it be inserted now? MarkC (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Here's my take. Temperature rising is a prediction. However, if the Earth warms, sea levels will rise. In other words, one is an if statement of climate, and the other is a will statement of thermodynamics (thermal expansion plus melting). Hope this helps, Awickert (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a common misconception, unfortunately you have forgotten (or don't know about) Bayes Theorem. You cannot ignore the prior probability if you wish to know the probability of an event occurring. Thus "will" is incorrect. See http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/bayesWeb/ for a more didactic explanation than the Wiki ref. Cheers MarkC (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC) MarkC (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What I mean to say (and thought I said) is, if temperature increases, then more melt will occur. The if-statement qualifies it and deals with the first probability. If you like to think in probability, the second one is 100% (thus will) and the first one is x% (thus if), so I'm just separating what you are combining. Awickert (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So maybe something like "the extent of global warming will determine the amount of global sea level rise". Awickert (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll just wait a bit and see what WMC says about my suggested text. I'm not interested in suffering a tag team between you and him and in the meantime did you rad Bayes Theorem? Do you think the extrapolated (100+ years) sea level rise is a prediction or a fact? Cheers MarkC (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Climate models do not use extrapolation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Extrapolation: extension of a method assuming similar methods will be applicable. So climate models do extrapolate. Cheers MarkC (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I'm not trying to tag-team. I'll try to chop up my reasoning to see where we're getting messed up. (1) Bayes theorem, insofar as I understand, is simply combining the probabilities of multiple events. (2) What you say, in my opinion, says that, but not so clearly because it combines them. (3) I am suggesting splitting, into (3a) If temp up (<100% probability), (3b) then sea level up (100% probability). Reason: it seems like a lack of clarity if we combine a sure thing with a probable thing and give a lump probability - why not apply the iffiness to the iffy part of the equation? If I'm totally missing you, let me know. Awickert (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well here's something to think about: the IPCC AGW models give a range of T rises (P(T=0) > 0). They also show that (for a given GW temp. rise) the projected/predicted extent of sea level rise is also uncertain. So if neither of these outcomes is certain how can we say sea level rise is certain -does that help? And yes, Bayes theorem allows us to correctly deduce the probability of a certain outcome, in this case P(R|T) (the probability of a sea level rise, given AGW takes place). Try estimating P(R) the probability of sea level rise regardless of temp, P(T) the probability of AGW being real and P(T|R) the probability that AGW takes place given sea level increases. Now use Bayes theorem -I think you will see it is <1.0! Cheers MarkC (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm being much simpler here. Instead of looking at extent, I'm simply doing binary will/won't. Unless there's a scenario that I don't know about in which some really weird climate interactions cause sea level to fall by sequestering more snow (which I believe has gotten the axe from many angles as a hypothesis), then there is a 100% chance that sea level will go up. The extent may be up for grabs, sure, but it will go up. We can go back to "projected to" and whatever if we start putting numbers on it. Awickert (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This has long passed the point of usefulness but in the spirit of playing the game I'll point out that you've gotten your priors messed up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A game to you is it? Well well, nothing like a troll exposing themselves -even in Wikipedia. Cheerio boyo MarkC (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with Boris on the usefulness issue. Mark - it's Boris' sense of humor. As another approach to answering the issues you bring up, even if we can't predict the extent of sea level rise, it will be determined by the changes in the mean global temperature and temperature distribution. Therefore, I suggest (close to my first suggestion) that we say, "The amount of sea level rise will be determined by the changes in the mean global temperature and temperature distribution, partially (mostly?) as a result of human-induced global warming." Awickert (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very constructive idea and I think that's a more accurate statement than the current, thanks. can it be inserted perhaps with the addition that the rise is likely due to a variety of mechanisms? Cheers MarkC (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only 2 mechanisms I know of are melting of continental ice and the thermal expansion of water. That could be included in a follow-up sentence. If that's good with everyone, I'll go ahead and make the change. Awickert (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry AW but I think your instinct for compromise is leading you astray. I can't see why your longer wording is any improvement over the current wording. It is in some respects worse: it implies that there would be no more SLR if the temperature stopped increasing William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No split infinitives :-). Fixed that. To the real deal though: I think that MarkC has a point in that "global warming, which will..." implies (to me) both SLR and GW. I guess mine could be read to imply that there's no lag time between atmosphere and the rest, but I think that it's technically correct in that changes in T determine SLR, lag time or no. Of course, if it seems like it implies something... well, shoot. Awickert (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying again: "The amount of sea level rise will be determined by changes in global water and ice temperature, mostly as a result of human-induced global warming." I'm ready to get done with this discussion, so I'll wait 24h for objections and then edit. Awickert (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me butting in here without having read the War and peace above, but the thing I'm keen to see included is the potential catastrophic collapse of ice sheets. I hope this can be adequately covered. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just for the lede, and most scientists put ice sheet collapse at centuries in the future. As it isn't mentioned in the body, there might be a place for it, though I'm not sure what the time-scope of this article is (i.e., if it's just the previous and next century, then this is unlikely to be important, though a small mention could be good).


 * I appreciate the discussion but here is the truthful statement: "Projections based on models for global warming suggest that sea level will increase ..." is the only correct scientific interpretation/summary of the IPCC chapter 10. I realize now that truth seems to have been lost by those who are grinding their political agenda in these Wiki pages and it saddens me that the essence of Wiki should be so subverted. MarkC (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't see where this is coming from: my new statement is more conservative than the previous one that you approved of, and is completely compatible with what you say here. Vaguely-aimed accusations are not useful - if you're accusing me of POV-pushing, say it loud and proud so I can reevaluate what I'm doing. Awickert (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, maybe this is the issue: rephrased as "The amount of sea level rise will be determined by changes in global water and ice temperature, which are both projected to increase as a result of human-induced global warming." Awickert (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want conservative, I suggest 'The process of ice sheet and glacier loss is poorly understood, and it is currently thought possible that sudden collapse may occur.' Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's totally not conservative. Awickert (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And not true, as per the ice dynamics literature. Pfeffer et al., cited in the lede, is worth a read. Awickert (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ice temperature? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't edit tired; this thing is getting too convoluted. Trying again: "The amount of sea level rise will be determined by the heating of water and ice, which is projected to continue as a result of human-induced global warming." Awickert (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Final stab. The hard part is making a single sentence say the result of global warming with lag time in a way that nobody here dislikes. "Current sea level rise is due partly to human-induced global warming, and the extent of this warming will determine the rate of sea level rise for the next century or longer." I'd like everyone to take a look, and if it's disliked, I'm abandoning ship and leaving the article as-is. Awickert (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's only partly? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what the current text says; my only new stuff is the second half of the sentence - let's deal with that later. Awickert (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A Return to Phanerozoic Average Sea Level?
Might we be near the end of a large cyclical regression; not so different from Permian end regression? Statistically might it not seem more likely that we are due to revert at least towards an average of sea level for overall Phanerozoic, or even a further transgression? Might this be a natural underlying trend, independent of any superimposed anthropomorphic effect? Might we be headed for an Eocene/Paleocene world? Might east Antarctica go in ~15,000 years or so; giving 100-200 meters rise in sea level?

30 million years hence, what might our 'present' stratum (pl: strata) of say 10 million years look like? Might there be any evidence of mankind? For example, if we occupy the middle of such strata, then plus or minus 5 million years. For the past 5 million years, there was no effect. For the future 5 million years, transgression and Yellowstone's Western and Midwest repeated ash fallout would seem to reveal nature's dominant hand. For 100-200 meter elevation of sea level to less than Cretaceous peak, most of southern U.S. would be inundated, and likewise for eastern coast. The Seaway would flood and enlarge Great Lakes into an inland sea. All coastal cities, and inland lake ports would become reefs initially, and then dissolution. Humanity would would once again be on the move. Therefore, might there be no evidence of mankind's handiwork in such strata (stratum); not even hard plastic cherts? So from a geological perspective, mankind's impact on the environment might be quite negligible, in comparison to nature's broader, deeper, more sustainable ways. Does our myopia greatly underestimate nature's scope and impact, in comparison to that of mankind's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.148.78 (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sea level falling
Isn't it wonderful, first global temperatures start falling and now see level has started falling. Of course whilst the rise is a scientific fact, the fall will be dismissed as an anomoly - such is life.89.168.142.149 (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first thing to do is to see if this is still going on today (old ref), and to find a scientific source for it (news ref; I'm happy to provide papers). Looking at the historical trend, there have been many up and down wiggles, so the aforementioned tasks should help to figure out whether it is significant. Awickert (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The ARGO system has been telling us that global mean sea temperature has been going down for some time so perhaps this result might be expected? Perhaps an editor would like that data to this section -what do you think? Cheers MarkC (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ARGO does not appear to agree with this statement. --P LUMBAGO  07:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. In passing, it would have helped if the anon above had noted the date of the Torygraph's news report: year 2000. So bang up to date then.  ARGO has something to say about that too.  --P LUMBAGO  07:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not raw ARGO sea surface temperature data plotted. By the way, there was no ARGO in 1955... See http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/correcting-ocean-cooling-nasa-changes-data-to-fit-the-models/ for some interesting discussion about data manipulation Cheers MarkC (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the plot shows a synthesis of observational data from a range of sources, including ARGO floats for its recent portions (yes, I'm aware that ARGO floats weren't around in the 1950s). That "raw" ARGO data is not shown is unsurprising given that there are literally thousands of floats out there of several technological generations, and that some degree of processing is going to be required to account for calibration or known equipment issues.  The article you cite gives an excellent example of the complexity of this latter process.  However, I don't see how it in any way contradicts the scientific consensus that ocean heat content is increasing (albeit with variability) and that sea levels are also increasing (albeit with variability).  Are you suggesting that "raw" ARGO data tells a different story to that shown on the ARGO site?  If so, can you point me in the direction of the appropriate sources?  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  16:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the ARGO st data is not presented on the ARGO site -seems quite bizarre but there you are. You can try some of the linked data viewers but they are quite flakey -some don't seem to return output. You may need to download their data viewer or use an environment where you can interrogate the raw netCDF data files which have also been regridded by several folks (see the site for details). The fall in temp was noted by Josh Wills and reported on NPR. Cheers MarkC (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A more recent study measures the rate of sea level rise at 1.31 mm/yr +- .3mm. See http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/14/sea-level-slowdown/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.12.80 (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Climate crisis
Recently, this article was taken out of Category:Climate crisis. I am baffled by this action. An article "about the current and future rise in sea level associated with global warming" is NOT part of Cat: Climate Crisis? Is today Opposite Day?--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was also recently added (last several hours) and is a relatively recently-created category (2 months ago), and the category has a decidedly non-neutral name. It also seems that the climate crisis category is a small eclectic collection of global warming-related topics, and topics that people think are related to global warming but really aren't (or are only tangentially, or perhaps maybe sort of under a couple of conditions but it's not really statistically significant) like the "floods" category. Awickert (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. So, adding this article to the category helps to improve it as this one actually belongs.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or actually IMO adding this to the "climate crisis" category is redundant to having it in the "effects of global warming" category; I'm thinking off the top of my head that there should maybe be a climate change activism category, maybe "Action on climate change" (which is being considered for deletion now).... In any case, it seems that the science is well categorized, there are some scattered categories for the politics, and that adding this article to a half-baked, poorly-defined, weasel-worded (IMO) category is not the best course of action. What might be better is consolidating the politics into categories that are parallel to the science categories. I'm going to comment on the CfD for "Action on Climate Change". Awickert (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I take some of that back. The "global warming" and "climate change" categories are really crufty too. So really it seems that there are too many of these darn things floating around, and little order to them. Awickert (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Overcategorization is human nature. -Atmoz (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see my linked discussion of the Future sea level rise issues, the same thing applies to this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_sea_level

Montestruc (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * Oppose - Someone tagged Future sea level to be merged with this article. I don't know why, since the editor did not given a reason. Both articles are already long, and a merged article would be too long (100K). --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tags removed per lack of support --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Opening
Can some explain how the sea level rise is documented here in the opening line? Source 1 says "no acceleration during the last century has been detected" and source 2 says "Multi-century sea-level records and climate models indicate an acceleration of sea-level rise, but no 20th century acceleration has previously been detected."

Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IzmirEkmek (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Barometric corrections to satellite measurements
An article in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology suggests that there is a significant correction to the rate of sea level rise due to atmospheric pressure changes. In Table 3, the authors give a rate of 0.5 mm/yr using their recommended method of correcting the TOPEX/Poseidon data over a limited time series versus 0.7 mm/yr for the standard method. This article is about 10 years old, so should have been incorporated in the more recent literature. This article has been extensively cited. Does anyone know if this needs to be considered in computing mean sea level changes using satellite data? At the very least, it points to potential uncertainty in the use of satellite measurements. Drphysics (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the inverse barometer correction is applied to satellite sea level measurement:

"A correction is made for the "inverse barometer" effect, where sea level is depressed in areas of high atmospheric pressure, and vice versa"

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_meas_sat_alt.html --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think this article could use a graph like the one from this post. It's a 380,000 year reconstruction of Red Sea sea levels (Siddall et al. 2003), with a temperature reconstruction from Vostok. I could contribute the graph myself, if you just point me to instructions on how to build graphs suitable for Wikipedia. Joseph449008 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it would be more appropriate in Sea level article, as that article covers a historic perspective, while this one is more focused on the present and near future. -- SPhilbrick  T  23:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To the extent that it relates to global warming, this is probably the right article. It does have a "past sea level rise" section, after all. Joseph449008 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to lede
The current lede states that " Thermal expansion, which is well-quantified, is currently the primary contributor to sea level rise and is expected to be the primary contributor over the course of the next century."

However, while thermal expansion is expected to contribute more than half the increase in the coming century, it isn't the primary contributor currently.

From AR4 page 409, "Thermal expansion is projected to contribute more than half of the average rise,..." but "During recent years (1993–2003), for which the observing system is much better, thermal expansion and melting of land ice each account for about half of the observed sea level rise,"

I propose the following replacement sentence: At the end of the 20th century, thermal expansion and melting of land ice contributed roughly equally to sea level rise, while thermal expansion is expected to contribute more than half the rise in the upcoming century.

I also intent to remove the subsequent sentence, "Glacial contributions to sea-level rise are less important, and are more difficult to predict and quantify" as it is no longer needed.

Current footnote 8 doesn't support the claim, or at least I couldn't find it as it is the AR4 chapter on Climate models, not the chapter on Sea Level. I will add the reference to the Sea Level chapter

Any objections?-- SPhilbrick  T  23:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The change sounds good - glacial contributions are definitely important; I actually don't remember the relative contributions but I trust that you're right. The only thing that I'm concerned about is that AR4 didn't include glacial dynamics, see this paper, I can send you a PDF if necessary. But go ahead and make the change - it will be better than the current version. Awickert (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How ironic. I started with Criticism of the IPCC AR4; as I think the organization needs some work. One paragraph contains the sentence "The IPCC AR4 estimates explicitly exclude the influence of the melting of ice sheets." I don't think that is literally correct, and the supplied reference isn't all that helpful, as it doesn't really point to a source. I'm guessing they are getting at glacial dynamics, and I started searching AR4 to find the exact reference. While searching, I came across the Sea Level Rise article, which lead me to this proposed change. However, my real interest is in reading about glacial dynamics, so yes, I'd love to see that paper. (I have enabled the email option)-- SPhilbrick  T  02:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - I'm actually not all that knowledgeable about this topic (other than the very basics), FYI. I'll send you an email, and if you reply (I can't attach things in wiki-emails), I'll send it over. Awickert (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thermal expansion is fairly easy to quantify but not dramatic. Various estimates of rather more SLR in the coming century (Hansen, Rahmstorf) would rely on more glacial melt. So be cautious William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. One of the concerns about the AR4 report is the possibility that their sea level estimates may be too low, as a result of not fully considering the impacts of glacial dynamics. Which reminds me, another editor promised to send me a paper on the subject, and I haven't received it, so I’ll have to follow-up. I wonder if we should add a caveat to this sentence, acknowledging that some experts felt that the melting of land ice could be materially higher than the AR4 estimates? The problem is, that probably universally true (this is, for every AR4 conclusion there are some experts with higher indications and some with lower), so we’d need a special reason to privilege this caveat. SPhilbrick  T  15:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Maintaining units for ease of comparison
The article talks mostly in mm except for 4 places where is used cm. I've changed those all to mm so that it's easier for reader to make direct comparisons insteaf of us randomly switching between units. If you notice any other weird units I'd encourage you to do the same. Lot  49a talk 14:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn paper
An IP added a statement referring to the recently withdrawn paper (which I reverted). However, I don't believe that paper was even used in support of this article, so the added comment comes out of left field. Of equal importance is that the withdrawal is due to errors, and it isn't yet clear what will happen to the conclusions when the errors are addressed. If this paper had been notable in itself, it's withdrawal might be notable. It wasn't. SPhilbrick  T  02:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The IP has probably been reading the std skeptic blogs William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See-also Talk:Global_warming and other circles William M. Connolley (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone arrogantly asserts in hidden text that there is no controversy about this topic. This is obviously not the case, and the deleted material demonstrates it. The note "nobody cares" is inappropriate, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodranch (talk • contribs) 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)  sock of banned editor 

Deletion of material demonstrating that there is controversy
Some editors are violating Neutral Point of View by removing references in reliable sources to the recent move by Nature Geoscience to retract a study which predicted a sea level rise due to global warming. These editors claim that there is no controversy over predictions of sea level rise, and removed the references with snide comments like "nobody cares." Some outside intervention is needed at this article. Goodranch (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)  sock of banned editor 


 * Am I understanding correctly that the paper is not currently being used as a reference in the article? If so, then there is no issue. If someone is pushing to include a reference to the article on account of it currently not being published, then that clearly does not meet notability requirements.  Many, many papers are not published and/or haven't passed peer review.  We do not list them off as "evidence against a theory" for obvious reasons.  Kevin Baastalk 16:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It was published, then retracted due to acknowledged errors. The retraction was unprecedented and received significant press coverage: Goodranch (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)  sock of banned editor 
 * that's incorrect use of the word "unprecedented". Unprecedented means that it has not happened before.   Clearly this is not the first time a paper was retracted due to errors.   As to the press: given the nature of the report and the specious logic you've already expressed, conservative radicals are bound to jump all over it.  So there's nothing all to surprising there.  And in any case you just anaswered my question in the affirmative.   Which also means the title of this section is wrong: this isn't a matter of "deletion" it's a matter of non-insertion.  i.e. it's not being "removed" it's being prevented from being "added".  (and with good reason: it doesn't meet WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY.)  I would call that "disingenous" and "intentionally misleading".  Also, as has been pointed out in past discussions (and the record shows this), the retraction due to acknowledged errors does not in th eleast bit "demonstrate that there is a controversy".  So the title is doubly-misleading.   Kevin Baastalk 14:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time that Nature Geoscience has retracted a paper due to errors, so it is unprecedented, as the press coverage says. The press coverage also demonstrates that there is a controversy. You may not like the press coverage, but most of Wikipedia seems to be sourced to press coverage. --Goodranch (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)  sock of banned editor 
 * Let's be careful with the use of the word "unprecedented". It isn't unprecedented to withdraw a paper, not even unprecedented to withdraw a climate science paper. It's only unprecedented at this single journal, which, IIRC, is relatively new. So the "unprecedented" label is really not very meaningful.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The paper was never used here, so its retraction is of no interest here. It might, perhaps, be of some interest at the Nature article? FWIW, the paper (had it been accurate) would have been quite a low-side constraint on SLR; that it has been retracted *raises* the "on average" prediction of future SLR, it doesn't lower it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Responding due to the RfC, Just my 2¢. The article states that there are uncertainties. The retraction was made due to well-specified reasons that affected the predictions in that article. There appears to be no dispute among scientists about whether or not sea levels are due to rise, but rather by how much, and how fast, and whether or not the causes are anthropogenic. The article appears to say that well. Seeing Goodranch proposed content in the editorial history, I agree with Connolley on this occasion that the addition is of no interest here. On a side-note, I agree that the retraction is unprecedented, but that in itself is not particularly interesting or notable regarding this article. An article that describes in detail the methodologies used for estimating sea level rise may wish to describe the boundaries of the errors of that paper; most especially how they were made, and why they were made. But the retraction itself does not seem particularly relevant. (20040302 (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Responding to the RFC (please word RFC requests more neutrally in the future: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template.") : the retraction of a single paper seems to be an issue too minor to address in this article. The current content of the article and one of the sources cited by Goodranch make it clear that this paper was only a fairly small component of the overall field of research. To discuss the retraction of study that is uncited in the article neems an unnecessary diversion. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Melt / flow
Re. I think it is flow; you can't possibly melt them fast enough. And the ref abstract says flow William M. Connolley (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Chesapeake Islands
Maybe a section should be added about the islands that are disappearing in the chesapeake bay. Smith and tangier island are getting washed away and there used to be another big inhabited island just north of smith island (forgot what it was called) but it's just a large sandbar now. These were/are pretty large islands and are a pretty dramatic example if it is sea level rise that is destroying them. Does anyone know about this?? 162.24.9.213 (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just need references. Sandbars and whole islands can change through processes other than sea level rise. Smkolins (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I found these
 * http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/infocus/sealevel_rise.asp
 * http://www.chesapeakelifemag.com/index.php/cl/travel_article/tr_hollandisland_ma06/
 * http://www.archive.org/details/coffeehouse_WeAreAllSmithIslanders
 * http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/blog/?p=2269
 * http://mddailyrecord.com/2010/04/20/the-threatened-existence-of-smith-island/
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052201666.html
 * 162.24.9.213 (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

== Add Responding to Climate Change: “America's Climate Choices” Lays Out Options ==

Add Responding to Climate Change: “America's Climate Choices” Lays Out Options ... it is mostly about the current sea level rise. are the authors in the March-April 2011 Environment Magazine. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Edward J. Dunlea is a Senior Program Officer at the National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate.
 * Laurie Geller is a Senior Program Officer for the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and served as study director for Limiting the Magnitude of Climate Change.
 * Ian Kraucunas is a Senior Program Officer for the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and served as study director for Advancing the Science of Climate Change.
 * Martha C. McConnell is a Program Officer for the National Research Council's Ocean Studies Board and served as study director for Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change.
 * Claudia Mengelt is a Senior Program Officer for the Ocean Studies Board and served as study director for Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change.
 * Nancy F. Huddleston is Communications Director for the National Research Council's Division on Earth and Life Studies.


 * The abstract doesn't even mention sea level. As you anon(s) frequently misstate the content of references, and the reference is only available by subscription, it shouldn't here, even as an external link, unless vetted by a credible editor.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No abstract I can see online. It appears one currently needs a subscription to see the whole thing.  I've it on paper, and it is about half on Sea level rise (used as an example of an Effects of global warming.  99.109.126.249 (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. It looked like an abstract.  It says "abstract" in the URL.  Still, I'm afraid I don't trust you about the content of the article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with AR. Needs to link to more than an abstract to be worthy of reference/citation/biblio. Arjuna (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Read further, not an abstract. 99.19.45.38 (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Abstract (summary) if clarification is needed. 99.190.87.213 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It claims to be an abstract. It looks like a description of the article, if not a good summary.  What would you call it?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an abstract according to the link ... america-climate-change-abstract.html. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * FIRST, see Wiki help on verifiability. A strike against inclusion is that the report is self-published but there are
 * exceptions. The fact that a subscription is required is NOT a strike against it per the wiki help.
 * SECOND, anyone can complain that something's missing. My personal philosophy is, don't suggest it unless you're willing
 * to DO it. Please draft some text with verifiable citations that you'd like to discuss.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Unattributed Subjectivity
I politely observe, and it is a personal frustration as well, that this article contains far too few interlinear citations, even though appearing to have had input from persons familiar with the relevant terminology. The result is improper "dangling subjectivity". It is entirely unacceptable for sea levels to be characterized as having been "astoundingly low" - that can can only mean to me that whoever was astounded (no reference is given) thinks they know more science than they do. We also have a statement that "A common perception is that the rate of sea-level rise should have accelerated during the latter half of the 20th century, but tide gauge data for the 20th century show no significant acceleration." Well.... precisely who holds this "common misperception" if the data for the last century shows otherwise?? Note also the contrast between the statement "A new assessment suggests sea level rise has dropped 2mm/yr from 2005" in comparison to the many later references to "Current rates of sea level rise" - those two (current drop and current rise) are not compatible. My final comment here (though I do not exhaust the possuble comments) is the unsupported reference to inundation of "the Louisiana Coast (due to land sinking)" - those of us remotely familiar with the Mississippi delta shrinkage know that the loss of land area has nothing to do with the land mass "sinking" but rather is a result of the silt not being replaced (as a result of the engineering of the river channel, which shoots the silt far out into the Gulf, allowing erosion of the delta barrier islands. I assume there are proper examples of land sinking due to techtonic effects.

I came to this article to learn facts and I am not competent to edit it (except to wack). I hope that its quality is improved by those more able than I. My anticipatory thanks to those who will make the effort SteveO1951 (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well said generallyNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The land does subside in coastal Louisiana, both by ongoing consolidation of sediments due to overburdon pressure and through movement of normal faults. Publications by Sherwood Gagliano have lots of information on this.


 * I agree. http://geology.com/nasa/louisiana-coastal-subsidence.shtml;   However I think you were referring to a stray sentence about delta subsidence that seemed out of context with the subsection so I deleted it.  I wish to assume good intentions, so I assume that editor is genuinely interested in the geophysical principles that drive that sort of subsidence.... and if so, then another article or subsection would be the place to talk about that admittedly cool geo-process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Anticipated rise, map needed
The article's present text cites an estimated 21st century maximum far less than what the Arctic Council's scientific arm, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Project (AMAP) is now predicting. See this report, which many news outlets have picked up today. It gives a 0.9 to 1.6m range. The full report is expected 12 May and we can expect it will make ITN. Also, the article would benefit from map(s) illustrating the change in shoreline associated with these figures. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I wanna see the source materials, not just the newspaper about them.  Can you dig up some citations for the actual reports?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

thermal expansion sentence deleted from lede
In AR4, IPCC didn't say much (anything?) about contributions from melting on Greenland or Antarctica. Later research by JPL tried to put a number on that, as indicated in the lede first paragraph. Since thermal expansion is much less than half of SLR in JPL's conclusion, I deleted this sentence a bit further down in the Lede. At the end of the 20th century, thermal expansion and melting of land ice contributed roughly equally to sea level rise, while thermal expansion is expected to contribute more than half of the rise in the upcoming century.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The deleted sentence is from the IPCC report, which is an assessment report, and thus rather more weighty than any individual paper. Contrary to your "didn't say much" statement, the IPCC report is rather thorough. The addition of the JPL data in the lede is giving undue weight to a single paper, and is not summarizing content in the article, which is what the lede is for. Wikipedia is not a scientific news-source, we summarize what the established view is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, certainly SLR due to thermal expansion is nothing to sneeze at. To answer your question 'what am I talking about?', I meant no matter how many pages they wrote about the ice sheets, in the end their final (2007) numbers do not include ice melt from Greenland or Antarctica beyond an assumption that those masses would continue spitting ice into the sea at some fixed rate from some frozen (thawing?) point in time because, as their report claims, ice sheet dynamics were still poorly quantified at that time.  See http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html and the qualifiers and hedge language in the caption for table 10.33.


 * But IPCC AR4 is not a holy text fixed in time. It was a 2007 report summarizing even old work (it took 'em a long time to write the 2007 work after all).  So the question seems to be whether an older work that admits on its face its missing some info is a superior citation for that missing info, than a later work that quantifies that info.  It's like saying "officer, we don't yet know what was stolen" is a superior property inventory than the list of stuff found an hour later in the suspects abandoned car.


 * If you can find another journal article that challenges JPL's work we can contrast the two. But a blanket suppression of JPL and omissions of the IPCC qualifier ("not including the elephant in the room") is not a faithful statement of what IPCC actually said. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the IPCC is certainly not holy writ. But it is the most comprehensive and well researched assessment report that we currently have available. (unless one of the US GCRP reports is more thorough) And that is what we have to go by in general terms. The JPL paper is interesting - but its authoritative value is rather low.
 * What Wikipedia presents is not cutting-edge science, and it is not supposed to do so. Does this mean that we shouldn't mention the JPL paper - or other papers of the same kind? No, it most certainly doesn't - i belongs in a discussion on details and progression of knowledge. But it does not belong in the lede - unless you can show that it is the established view in the literature. In the lede we present an overview - and an overview is not done by presenting the latest breaking evidence - but instead the summary of the science, and the body of the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a few questions, Kim -


 * (A) Could you please direct me to something in the guidelines that says wiki is not supposed to report cutting edge science? I'm a new editor and it may well be in there somewhere but I haven't found it yet.


 * (B) Answer whether we can make statements about what IPCC said, while omitting IPCC's qualifiers and hedges attached to that language, and still claim we are accurately reporting the IPCC's words? An example of this is the struck out language above, that omits the small detail that IPCC was leaving out changes in ice sheet dynamics from Antarctica and Greenland. IMO, omitting that detail falsely makes a newbie think we've got a grip on these things, and the risk is known and quantified.  But that's not what IPCC says.  Quite the opposite!  IPCC gives a likely projection with the hedge that this ice sheet issue is still unknown.


 * (C) Besides the JPL paper, a quick search on Google Scholar, limited to 2010-2011, on [IPCC underestimates 'sea level'] returns 1340 hits. For example,  "A number of recent studies taking the semi-empirical approach have predicted much higher sea level rise for the twenty-first century than the IPCC, exceeding one metre if greenhouse gas emissions continue to escalate. These new results have found wide recognition in the scientific community, as recent broad-based assessments show." internal cites omitted


 * I'm all for accurately reporting IPCC AR4. IMO, we should tell people what IPCC actually said about sea level and ice sheets, and we should tell people how later research adds to that understanding.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * With regards to Point A: RS&mdash;"Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) (which is not a guideline but is based on the guideline Identifying reliable sources (medicine)) explains it very well. NW ( Talk ) 20:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks NW, I hadn't seen that yet. It seems that the JPL paper is a meta-analysis in that they arrived at very close results using TWO different approaches, and its a scholarly review article(aka peer reviewed paper).  See also the commentary in Nature cited in "Point C" above.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand what a systematic review is. I'm not disputing that the article is a peer reviewed article (Geophysical Research Letters) or even a high quality one. However, systematic reviews rarely if ever analyze the data itself; they instead look at previously published papers and attempt to synthesize a common narrative out of them, weighting the papers as necessary. I admit I haven't read the article, but a quick skim of the abstract indicates to me that it is a simple (if extensive) scholarly paper, not a literature review. NW ( Talk ) 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NW, the JPL paper is indeed a research report and not a lit review. Please note you changed the goal posts.  In an earlier comment you advocated "scholary review articles".  Even though I'm socially surrounded by hard science researchers that was a new term to me, so I googled it and the first few hits suggested it is synonymous with a peer review paper, which the JPL research report most certainly is.  You didn't mention a preference for lit review articles until your last post. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All review articles are peer reviewed articles, but not all peer reviewed articles are review articles. Research articles by definition cannot be "scholarly review articles"; systematic/literature review articles reflect on past articles while research articles add new knowledge to the field. NW ( Talk ) 03:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Flat out WRONG
Quote: ''Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of continental ice sheets. '' -- part of initial description as of June 16, 2009

The latter part is potentially correct, but the first claim, "thermal expansion", is just flat out wrong. Water is atypical, in that its solid form is more voluminous than its liquid form. This has been used for centuries as a means of breaking down large rocks in fields into more manageable (i.e., movable) pieces. In the winter, you pour water into the cracks, and, when it freezes, it expands, breaking the rock apart. This is also a prime reason for road deterioration in the north, when melted rain gets into cracks and then freezes in a successive cold spell. An iceberg has less volume of water than the volume of the berg. Any sea-level rise must come from snow/icepack which is above sea level (or at least not contributing to it by being a part of the oceans due to land formations)

I've removed this part of the description as a result. I think that the rest of the article needs to be much more carefully vetted if such an obvious fact was missed.

Also, this article probably needs to be included and cited: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo544.html

OBloodyHell (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was talking about thermal expansion of water, the runny stuff. Would you care to revert? Pterre (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Pterre took the words ;-) Look at your reference btw. which say much the same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To OBloodyHell: The reason is that no phase change takes place. Water does not become monotonously more voluminous as it gets colder: it contracts. It then expands when it becomes crystalline. Awickert (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think OBloodyHell just read it wrong. Smkolins (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it's a bit problematic as water reaches its max density at 3.98 C. Either side of that it expands. So... the mean temp of water in the region of interest decides if melting ice causes an increase or decrease in volume -right? MarkC (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well OK, but the region of interest is the world's oceans. Pterre (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, we are not just talking about expansion of melt water, but expansion of water everywhere. Pterre (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OBH got it wrong. The expansion of liquid water into ice as it freezes is not relevant to sea level rise. Ice is less dense than water, therefore it floats partially above the surface, and does not affect sea level at all. Thermal expansion of liquid water however, does increase the volume of the oceans, therefore causing a measurable rise in sea level.Landroo (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Dumb Question: has anyone considered the size of the ocean is changing due to plate tectonics? Make the pond smaller and the sea level will rise. KVB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.113.3 (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Locally, tectonics result in uplift and subsidence, as does mantle flow in response to changing glacial and water loads (see this paper, for example). Globally, tectonics is a very minor player; a way to think of why this is is because expansion of ocean basins (from seafloor spreading) is generally matched by subduction, so the ocean volume stays pretty much constant. There are fluctuations in ocean volume due to ocean geometry as ocean basins reconfigure themselves, but none that are important over the 100+ years that we're talking about. Awickert (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In many places, effects of tectonics and global warming are generally dwarfed by the isostatic adjustments resulting from the melting of the continental ice sheets (the "last ice age"). In fact, sea level would DROP near Greenland if the ice cover melted, as the gravitational pull from the ice actually raises the sea level locally. 173.161.195.122 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, although thermal expansion in the top layer of seawater does affect satellite-based sealevel measurements, it has no effect on coastal sea levels. Consider what happens when there is a density change in the top layer of seawater in the open ocean (perhaps due to temperature change). If the density decreases (the water expands) then the sea level rises, in place, in the open ocean, without affecting coastal sea levels at all. (Mariners call this concept "displacement" – it is measured in units of mass, not volume.)

Examples of this are icebergs and sea ice. When frozen, water has reduced density, so an iceberg (or Arctic icecap) rises above the surrounding liquid water. Its top surface is a locally elevated sea level. When the ice melts, that locally elevated sea level falls, but it has no effect at all on coastal sea level, because the iceberg's water has the same mass (displacement) regardless of its varying density and solidity.

The same thing happens when surface water warms in the open ocean. Sea level goes up there, in the open ocean, due to thermal expansion of the water, but it has no effect at all on coastal sea levels.

(Note: density changes in seawater in lower layers of the ocean do affect coastal sea levels, but it takes hundreds of years for surface heat to find its way to way down to the lower layers of the ocean, so anthropogenic global warming cannot have much affected it yet.) NCdave (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NCdave, you'll need a reliable source to support your assertions. According to NASA, both satellite AND coastal tide gauges are showing rising sea levels.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct, Curtis, that both satellites and coastal tide gauges show that sea levels are rising, but not at the same rate, and neither form of measurement is showing any sign of acceleration.


 * Of course, in the case of satellite-based measurements, it is a bit early to detect acceleration, since we have less than 20 years of data. But in the case of tide gauge measurements, we have data going back well into the 19th century.  The tide gauges did show modest acceleration in rate of sea level rise following the end of the LIA, until the very early 20th century, but there's been no sustained acceleration in rate of coastal sea level rise, as measured by tide gauges, in the last 80+ years.


 * Note: Church & White (2006) reported detecting a "20th Century Acceleration in Sea Level Rise" but their paper noted that they were the only researchers to have done so, and most of the acceleration they detected was actually in the 19th century, and their confidence interval for 20th century acceleration extended down to zero, and in their later (2009) data the 20th century acceleration disappeared entirely.


 * The fact that density changes (such as freezing or thermal expansion) in the surface layer of the open ocean affect sea level only locally, and do not affect coastal sea levels, is elementary physics. The same mass of water has the same displacement, regardless of whether it is ice, slush or liquid.  As long as it is on the surface of the ocean, changes in its density can't affect coastal sea levels elsewhere.  (That's why sea level elsewhere is not affected by changing amounts of sea ice in the Arctic and Southern Oceans.)  NCdave (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you then explain how a mercury thermometer works?137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Revised introduction
I've rewritten the entire introduction to this article. I felt that the previous revision had some problems. Here's the previous revision for reference:

Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1][2] and more recently, during the satellite altimetry era of sea level measurement, at rates in the range of 2.9-3.4 ± 0.4-0.6 mm per year from 1993–2010.[3][4][5][6][7] One 2008 study suggests that there has been an observed reduction in the prior rate of sea level by 2mm/yr from 2005 (a 60% reduction from the 1993 to 2005 rate) to a level of 1mm/yr.[8] In 2011, JPL-(US) projected sea level rise of 32cm (12.6 inches) by the year 2050, with contribution from the following sources: Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets - 15 centimeters (5.9 inches); Glacial ice caps - 8 centimeters (3.1 inches); Ocean thermal expansion - 9 centimeters (3.5 inches); TOTAL sea level rise by 2050 - 32 centimeters (12.6 inches).[9][10]

Scientific evidence supports the claim that current sea level rise is caused by global warming,[11] which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods.[12]

Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of mountain glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets.

Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of this century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm. Models of glacier mass balance (the difference between melting and accumulation of snow and ice on a glacier) give a theoretical maximum value for sea level rise in the current century of 2 metres (and a "more plausible" one of 0.8 metres), based on limitations on how quickly glaciers can melt.[13]

I'll chop it up below and explain the reasons for my changes.

Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1][2] and more recently, during the satellite altimetry era of sea level measurement, at rates in the range of 2.9-3.4 ± 0.4-0.6 mm per year from 1993–2010.

I have a problem with these sentences. Current changes in sea level will always be being revised, making this sentence constantly dated. I know that any revisions to estimates will be minor over the short-term, but I thought that it could be changed slightly to avoid this problem. My revision (see the main article for references):

''Current sea level rise potentially impacts human populations (e.g., those living in coastal regions and on islands) and the wider natural environment. Global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.8 mm per year between 1961 to 2003, and at an average rate of about 3.1 mm per year from 1993 to 2003. It is unclear whether or not the increased rate observed between 1993 and 2003 reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.''

The time period here is shorter, but it was used by the IPCC (2007) and US National Research Council (2010), as well as on the NOAA website. It is also pretty similar to the more recent estimates. I felt that the +/- range could be omitted (as the US NRC do) in the introduction as this may confuse some readers. The newer sea level estimates are already mentioned in a later part of the article. I've added more details for some of the cited estimates (current sea level rise). This may be useful to those who are interested in why the various estimates are different.

One 2008 study suggests that there has been an observed reduction in the prior rate of sea level by 2mm/yr from 2005 (a 60% reduction from the 1993 to 2005 rate) to a level of 1mm/yr.[8] 

The above information is potentially misleading and I do not think is important enought to include in the introduction. The IPCC/US NRC/NOAA sources concentrate on long-term trends, and clearly distinguish these from short-term variability. I've explained these issues in a new section on short-term variability and long-term trends (current sea level rise). Also, I've expanded the information from the cited source (Ablain et al, 2009) in a later section (current sea level rise).

In 2011, JPL-(US) projected sea level rise of 32cm (12.6 inches) by the year 2050, with contribution from the following sources: Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets - 15 centimeters (5.9 inches); Glacial ice caps - 8 centimeters (3.1 inches); Ocean thermal expansion - 9 centimeters (3.5 inches); TOTAL sea level rise by 2050 - 32 centimeters (12.6 inches).[9][10]

[...] Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of this century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm. Models of glacier mass balance (the difference between melting and accumulation of snow and ice on a glacier) give a theoretical maximum value for sea level rise in the current century of 2 metres (and a "more plausible" one of 0.8 metres), based on limitations on how quickly glaciers can melt.[13]

These projections are not representative of the scientific literature (see US NRC, 2010). The IPCC TAR projections are out-of-date. My new revision:

''There is a widespread consensus that substantial long-term sea level rise will continue for centuries to come.[43] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007d) projected sea level rise to the end of the 21st century relative to global average sea level at the end of the 20th century. Their projections for this time period range from an increase of 18 to 59 cm (7.1 to 23.2 in). More recently, several groups have presented findings which suggest that the IPCC estimates are too low.''

This paragraph is based on the IPCC, US NRC, and NOAA sources. More detail on projections is contained later on in the article (current sea level rise).

Scientific evidence supports the claim that current sea level rise is caused by global warming,[11] which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods.[12]

I felt that this sentence could be improved and made more specific. My replacement:

''Sea level rise is one of several lines of evidence that strongly support the view that the climate has recently warmed. It is very likely that human-induced (anthropogenic) warming was responsible for the sea level rise observed in the latter half of the 20th century.''

Enescot (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Factors known to affect sea level (SL)
Singer lists three factors (first two are from IPCC):


 * The contribution to SL rise of the past century comes mainly from three sources: (i) Thermal expansion of the warming ocean contributed about 4 cm; and (ii) the melting of continental glaciers about 3.5 cm.  (iii) The polar regions, on the other hand, produced a net lowering of SL, with most of this coming from the Antarctic.  (The mechanism is intuitively easy to understand but difficult to calculate:  A warming ocean evaporates more water, and some of it rains out in the polar regions, thus transferring water from the ocean to the polar ice caps.)  The surprising result: When one simply adds up all these contributions (neglecting the large uncertainties), they account for only about 20 percent of the observed rise of 18 cm.  The climate warming since 1900 cannot be the cause of the SL rise; something is missing here. (Singer)


 * Indented line

global warming and sea level rise

 * What about the effects of human-induced global warming on SL rise? Will it really increase the rate above its natural value, as predicted by the IPCC?  We do have a handle on this question by observing what actually happened when the climate warmed sharply between 1900 and 1940, before cooling between 1940 and 1975.  The answer is quite surprising and could not have been derived from theory or from mathematical models.  The data show that SL rise slowed down when the climate warmed and accelerated when the climate cooled.  Evidently, ocean-water thermal expansion and mountain-glacier melting were less important than ice accumulation on the Antarctic continent (which lowers SL). (ibid.)


 * I'm sorry, but the claim that current sea-level rise is due to AGW is absolutely absurd. The evidence simply doesn't bear this out.  The rise has not changed for over 5 thousand years, as shown by graphs in this very article!  To claim that AGW is having an effect on SLR is unconscionably incorrect.  A note of "don't change this even if you disagree" is incredibly asinine.  When there is no evidence for a claim, Wikipedia's own policies say the claim should be removed.  I've edited the statement to reflect that.
 * To support my dispute, I provide the following:
 * "there is no discernible divergence in the rate of sea-level rise over the past two centuries [1800-2000] to suggest a connection with the documented increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration… the rate of sea-level rise has been linear over this time period and shows no indication of the pronounced mid-20th-century increase".
 * I have little problem saying that people "suggest" that current sea-level rise is due to AGW, as people certainly do. There is, in fact, a great deal of scientific discussion about it.  Heck, even an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC questions it.  Thus, to say that current SLR is due to AGW is far from "neutral" and, more importantly, in dispute at this moment.
 * Aaronburro (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * None of the graphs in this article prove what you're suggesting. The millenial graphs only show mildly fluctuating trends during the past thousands of years but the scale is too large to discern any human influence. The first graph only suggests no trend increase since the early 20th Century. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 17:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

References; Harv?
The citations/references in this article seem generally in good shape (and in template form!), albeit with a few exceptions, and (I think) some incompleteness. I would upgrade the IPCC citations (which the article draws on heavily) as I have done at Global warming, but because of the repeated use of some of the references it would be much handier (and clearer) to use Harv templates for the specific citations. Any objections? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently no objections, then, of using Harv. But more questions.  E.g., I see that the existing references section seems to be of sources not cited in the article.  Any reason for this?  Is this supposed to be a "further reading" section?  And assuming that it should be kept (but renamed?) I would also like to reformat it so the templates are easier to read.  _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I was intentionally butting out since I backed you on the ref method, but when you first posted I was tempted to write "please do, and then I can see how harv works in an article I care about".  As for orphaned refs, please start a new subsection with a specific version #, and the number of the orphaned ref.  Not sure what you're referring to.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I like to see references using templates on any article, I'm glad J. Johnson (JJ) is taking on formatting and organizing references. I would like some clarification on the advantage of the Harv over other citation templates, I've always used  templates myself, and am not used to seeing the larger citations on wikipedia.  (larger than a small number in square brackets that is)  If you can let me know that would be great.  Thanks!  --Keithonearth (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, all this toiling away hardly leaves me with any time to sit around the fire and engage in verbal spats with the others! If you want a running list of articles I've been hacking on (or about to) check User_talk:J. Johnson.  Coming soon to a favorite of yours!


 * As to Harv "over" cite: wrong comparison, as they work at slightly different levels. 'Cite' (and 'citation') produce a reference to an external source, with all the bibliographic trimmings.  'Harv' is a convienent way of linking a citation, with specific details such as section or page numbers in the source, to a local reference.  It is possible to use Harv even with manually formatted references (some assembly of a suitable CITEREF anchor is required).


 * I sense possible confusion. What I referred to early is basically all of the references (the whole bibilographic entry) in the current "References" section: they all seem uncited in the article.
 * _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Linked examples please! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh? Like everything at Current_sea_level_rise? Sorry, I'm feeling duller than usual today, and don't understand what kind of examples you want. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry you're low-E today, JJ. I know nothing about Harv. I could of course read the help section about Harv, and attempt to infer how you propose to use it, but it would be faster (at least for me) and less prone to misinterpretation (by me) if you can point to an existing use, or else create one as a demo.  One way I like to demo is on my own page, and another is to do make the change to the article, and then revert myself, just to create an old version link as an example.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to put a demo nd brief exegesis on your talk page. See you there.  You, too, Keith. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And done. Which leaves my prior question: what should be done about the references in the existing References section, none(?) of which are cited in the article? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to just rename that section to "Further reading", like has been done in some other articles. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Enescot: in your "correction of Fischlin" (with which I concur) your addtional "added important IPCC information" undid substantial work of mine in splitting the named refs. I think they should be split (specification aids verfication and detection of errors), and I would begrudge having to do that over again. The easiest fix is to revert your change, then add the SMP text manually. Are you okay with that? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
An editor has for the second time deleted content (as OR?) that is at most in need of slight rephrasing. The cited should be quite unambiguous, but if more/better sources are still desired, the appropriate response is to tag with a challenge such as  or, not simply delete. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The text I deleted]] appeals to me and I would not be surprised if that phenomena will be documented. I note you you initially tagged the highly technical journal reference with (verification needed), but you now describe it as "unambiguous".   Assuming good faith, I assume you read it and understood it before editing the article, but that leaves me mystified why you tagged it (verification needed)?   Despite my science degree I found the paper quite dense.  What paragraph(s) in particular do you think unambiguously support the deleted text?


 * Meanwhile, I spent some time looking for secondary sources discussing that paper, and also other papers by the same author, and I would love to put the text back in. But so far, I have found no sources to support it. Please prove me wrong! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I tagged it vn to ensure it would get looked at more closely than I had time for at the moment. The deleted text read "If, for instance, the Arctic Ocean becomes ice free, it becomes a giant solar collector. Warm air rising off this open ocean, with much increased water vapor and hence latent heat could couple with katabatic winds over Greenland. Such an import of heat applied to the surface of the ice would accelerate melting." The first sentence, while rather obvious, is supported by the albedo discussion in Doscher et al. The second sentence is supported by the first full para on p.1174. The third is barely more than commonsense: every 540 calories of added heat melts an additional gram of ice. I agree thought, that the source is in rather dense language, and a plainer source would be helpful. One paper that cites it,, might be worth exploring.LeadSongDog  come howl!  03:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource A Sky-Hide Tide, This Time Fleeting, but Perhaps a Glimpse of things to Come
King Tide to Raise Sea Level on Atlantic Coast ... The sea level around New York has been rising about an inch per decade over the past 100 years. On Thursday, it will rise even higher, ... October 26, 2011 page A22 in print Title, by Jim Dwyer 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * King tide 99.190.85.15 (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe include on Climate change in the United States &/or Regional effects of global warming. 99.181.138.228 (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Verification tag JJ added to a couple cites to Table SPM.1
Hi JJ, thanks for caring. It is unclear what problems you think might be there.

For this sentence you tagged, were you objecting to the numbers themselves (table is in meters our text converted to cm), fact that the article has synthesized a single range out of six marker scenarios, or something else?

For the lead sentence you tagged, see above plus an additional problem. The citation in this sentence only points to a table on a webpage. The table only talks about numbers so it does not support the rest of the text in the sentence you tagged. However, if you go down two paragraphs below the table please find where IPCC said "Because understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise." I think that statement supports the rest of the text, and if you agree, the citation needs to be expanded somehow. Alas, I am unsure how to do that in a way that supports your excellent standardization program. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In both cases I was not objecting to extracting the numbers from the table (it seems obvious that the editor was simply taking the low and high estimates), but it seems (to me) that the 18 cm datum might not be correct. And I would rather that someone else evaluate that. Also, it might be preferable to cite the table where it first appears (somewhere in WG1); perhaps there is a little more discussion there.


 * In the second to last paragraph of the lede I am somewhat confused by the pair of sentences here, both of which cite Table SPM.1 (notes 10 and 11). In the first instance it seems uncontrovertible that IPCC projected sea level rise, and I wonder why the citation is even needed.  In the second case it is unclear whether the citation is for the figures taken from the table, or for the second part of the sentence, that the IPCC "explicitly refrained from assessing ...", in which case the table is not the section to cite. I am wondering if the two sentences could be rearranged somewhat.


 * Tell me more on how you think the citation needs expanding. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 20:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * While you're in there, perhaps you (or anyone else that want's something to do) could also give some attention to the bunch of troubled citations starting at note 54 (and also 84). If they need to be split up (because they refer to different sections) let me, and I'll do that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for caring, those are all good questions. If no one gets to it first, I will try to spend time on this next week.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Graphic update?
The sea level graphic is getting a little long in the tooth. Is it time to find a more current replacement?-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  15:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's several in the article. Which one did you have in mind? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Recent Sea Level Rise" in the upper right, which only goes through 2003.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  15:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An additional reason for replacing the image is that the current one looks OR. I don't see that this was discussed, although perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place. There's no need to have, or rehash that discussion, if a contemporary replacement can be found.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  15:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember that just because some editor puts together a graphic does not automatically make it OR, provided there's a consensus the graphic fairly represents the info in an RS. With that in mind, here's a possibility NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope we can do better. -- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  21:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Better is good. Could you be more specific about why you think it didn't measure up?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)