Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:34, 22 December 2005

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages (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.

Effect of ice shelves?

OSO added:

Ice Shelves float on the surface of the sea and, if they melt, should actually decrease sea levels. This can be inferred by ice cubes floating in a glass of water which, when they melt, result in a decrease in water level. It can be argued, however, that if ice shelves melt, that it is a precursor to the melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica.

Not sure why they are supposed to decrease sea level. According to http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.html (using sea ice, but its the same) they would marginally raise sea level.

This probably needs to be placed into the article. The web link above states that ice shelves will have no significant impact either way. I have yet to be convinced but the fact is that when they melt the sea levels will not rise at all. One Salient Oversight 10:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 11:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Read the bit in the FAQ about the small effect of sea ice melting - this applies to ice shelves too. Why do you now say that "the fact is that when they melt the sea levels will not rise at all" when you put the bit about sea level falling into the article? Ditto the bit about ice cubes - where does that come from?

I suppose I'm trying to be logical here. Take a glass of water and place an ice cube in it. What happens? The water level rises because it has been displaced by the ice. But when the ice melts the water level drops. My argument is that the same thing happens with ice shelves. They float on the water and their increased bulk displaces it. If they melt then the displacement stops and water levels drop.

(William M. Connolley 13:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Not sure of your logic. Or rather, I'm sure your logic is wrong. Sorry. I've edited then re-organised the page somewhat.

Ice sheets are a different matter. They exist on land (Greenland and Antarctica). If they melt then the water will run into the sea and sea levels will rise.

It may be that the salt water / fresh water difference may cause something other than what I'm arguing here. I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can explain it all to me.

One Salient Oversight 12:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For that last point, see the FAQ:

First, why can't the other four be catastrophic? Sea ice cannot change sea level much. That it can do so at all is because sea ice is not made of quite the same material as the ocean. Sea ice is much fresher than sea water (5 parts per thousand instead of about 35). When the ice melts (pretend for the moment that it does so instantly and retains its shape), the resultant melt water is still slightly less dense than the original sea water. So the meltwater still 'stands' a little higher than the local sea level. The amount of extra height depends on the salinity difference between ice and ocean, and corresponds to about 2% of the thickness of the original ice floe. For 30 million square kilometers of ice (global maximum extent) and average thickness of 2 meters (the Arctic ice is about 3 meters, the Antarctic is about 1), the corresponding change in global sea level would be 2 (meters) * 0.02 (salinity effect) * 0.10 (fraction of ocean covered by ice), or 4 mm. Not a large figure, but not zero either.

And I'm about to go to bed. Before I do I intend to begin the experiment outlined here that argues that there is no net difference in melting ice cubes. Another interesting site that uses ice cubes as an example is http://www.flem-ath.com/worry1.htm

One Salient Oversight 12:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I stand convinced. The experiment proved me wrong. Thanks also for moving and changing my text to be more accurate. One Salient Oversight 22:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 08:19, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)) OK :-)

21 Nov 2004 (sidd@membrane.com): I have added a small section on the TOPEX/JASON satellite data.

7 Dec 2004 (sidd@membrane.com): Added references to subpolar, Greenland and Alaska glacier contribution.

7 Mar 2005 (sidd@membrane.com): Sec 5: Added references to Rignot et al.(2002,2004) and Thomas et al. (2004) re Greenland and West Antarctic contributions.

Merged with Sea level change

(William M. Connolley 22:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I have merged in text from sea level change. The biggest bit is the sedimentary section, which is quite chatty. I'm not very good at sedimentary stuff so have mostly left it.

I am disturbed that the entry Sea Level Change has been redirected here. I object that people interesting in understanding what causes change (*fall* as well as rise) get directed to an entry that stresses *rise* (and then gets into stuff that properly belongs under "Climate Change"...note I didn't say global *warming*). NPOV, folks, NPOV. Let's change this entry's name to Sea Level Change and redirect sea level rise to this page.

(William M. Connolley 21:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Please sign your comments (four tildas). SLR seems better - its much of the text, and its what most people are interested in.

I would support the creation of two pages, "sea level change" that deals primarily with the long term variations relavant to geology and evolution, and a second page at perhaps "recent sea level rise" that deals with the last 20 kyr or so and incorporates virtually all of the material on this current page. Dragons flight 22:34, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Morner

(William M. Connolley 21:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I've removed the Morner stuff SEW added. Sorry. Because: Morner represents no-one but himself. There *is* no INQUA commission with that name. Morner has been told to take that website down and to stop misrepresenting himself .

Correction. If you read that document a bit more carefully, you'll see that there is not CURRENTLY an INQUA commission with that name, and he is not CURRENTLY its president, but there was, and he was, up until July 2003 when the INQUA disbanded the commission. I don't think that warrants complete removal of his prediction. — Cortonin | Talk 22:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Yes it does, because the site itself is now invalid, since it misrepresents itself.

If you had read the site, you would see it was from 2000, which was well before the disbanding of that commission. There is no misrepresentation going on. Please stop removing his estimates from the article. If you have the IPCC predictions, it's perfectly legitimate to include a primary opposing view to the IPCC predictions. That's how Misplaced Pages achieves NPOV. — Cortonin | Talk 22:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)) The site claims the current existence of the comission, by implication. It is therefore deceptive, and deliberately so. The "estimates" by Morner have no status at all, and should not be referenced. If you can find them in a published journal then fine - add them and source them properly. But picking stuff off dodgy web pages is no good. I see you found one though (can't see what the Maldives one is about -we can't list every paper dealing with every sea level station).

There is no deception whatsoever when every date on the site is from when there WAS such a commission. It amazes me that you feel so adamantly about censoring those results simply because the commission was rotated out of existence in accordance with normal INQUA procedure. Are you listening to yourself? Should we remove the TAR because the TAR is in the past? The commission existed more recently than the TAR. — Cortonin | Talk 17:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is deception. http://www.pog.su.se/sea/ makes no reference to the commission no longer existing. Morner has been told (pers comm) to take down that site. Any casual visitor will assume (a) that the commission continues to exist and (b) that the site in some way reflects INQUA's official position. Neither is true. Morner abused his position to push his personal POV, and continues to: see .

There is no reason for him to take the site down. If I were him, I would not. INQUA, like any scientific organization, should not have the authority to erase record of previous work commissioned by itself. This "pers comm" which you claim has asked him to take it down neither should bear authoritative weight, nor apparently does it, since it is apparently undocumented. Instead, that is simply a political dispute from someone who dislikes the results, but instead of disputing the results, is simply calling for their deletion. Uhm, science? — Cortonin | Talk 17:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As for "abused his position", I'm not seeing any reference to him having done that outside of that environmentaldefense.org pdf (which appears to be a political action committee, not a research organization), nor am I seeing the response to that letter. Did it even occur? Was it a simple misprint in a bulletin or misquote by an introducer? Details are rather important when you try to hinge so much on a detail like the inclusion or exclusion of the word "former", and details are notably absent here. Move along. — Cortonin | Talk 17:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The letter in question, it should be noted, is written by the president of INQUA, not by environmentaldefense.org, which merely hosts the PDF. Graft 18:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)) There is every reason for Morner to take the site down: he is abusing his now-severed connection with INQUA. Furthermore the letter, from INQUA, amkes it quite clear that INQUA does not share Morners personal opinions:

Further, INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view.

(SEWilco 20:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)) So scientist Connolley believes research should be destroyed. Where in that memo did INQUA say the web site should be destroyed?

(William M. Connolley 20:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Read what I wrote: its a pers comm. And as for destroying science: there is none on those pages. If there was any, ot could stay, as long as the misleading impression that it is INQUA stuff: which it isn't: its Morners pet opinions. Also, the current text on the wikw page isn't cited properly.

I don't think your personal communications are of any concern in an encyclopedia. Moving on.

(William M. Connolley 10:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Pers comm doesn't belong in the body but is appropriate within talk. Are you abandoning "assume good faith"?

You started this thing off by saying the commission didn't exist.

(William M. Connolley 10:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I started off saying There *is* no INQUA commission with that name which is correct.

It did, and he was the president of the commission, and that page documents what they concluded during the run of that commission. End of story. Now we document that in the encyclopedia. Whether or not you like the results or the man behind the results, and whether or not the new INQUA president likes the results or the man behind the results, are of no concern whatsoever. If you want to start a Misplaced Pages page called "The reasons people don't like Nils-Axel Morner", then go right ahead. But this one is about sea level rise and the arguments that have been made about it. — Cortonin | Talk 23:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)) The stuff on that page represents Morners personal POV, not INQUAs.

"Morner represents no-one but himself." He has published a lot under his name, but when he spoke for the commission there were others participating. There were studies with co-authors from the commission, notably the Maldives Project paper in 2003 which suggests their constant participation. "New perspectives for the future of the Maldives" was "Received 4 December 2001", so its authors were coworkers at least in 2001. (SEWilco 06:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 10:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)) You want to quote about global sea level from the Maldives paper (not sure how that would be possible though) then thats fine., But quoting from one bods personal website isn't fine.

The page does not represent "INQUAs POV" because INQUA does not HAVE a singular POV. It is not a body which exists to form POV, it's a body which exists to form commissions, and those commissions exist to investigate phenomena, form conclusions, and report those conclusions, and that's precisely what happened. You seem to be the only one here who has trouble with that concept. — Cortonin | Talk 18:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not quoting about global sea level from the Maldives paper. I am quoting global sea level work (Morner, 2004) and there is only one 2004 Reference with only Morner's name on it. Estimating future sea level changes from past records doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00097-3 (SEWilco 21:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Copied over from Talk:Global warming:

• INQUA finally got sick of him, got rid of the commission, -- Source?
• http://www.pog.su.se/sea which is invalid: this commission doesn't exist anymore.
  • Click on "The Commission" and it says it ended in 2003. SEWilco 08:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The INQUA disbanded the entire commission, rather than simply remove him.
  • g.(i) The officers of a Commission and its subordinate bodies are elected for one inter-Congress period The INQUA didn't have to remove him, simply not reelect him. Where is their discussion of this? SEWilco
    • The INQUA was in the process of restructuring their commissions anyway, so there likely was not a formal discussion on that topic: . (And thus, nothing should be implied here about him as a result of the commission no longer existing, because from the documentation it appears completely unrelated.) — Cortonin | Talk 15:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• If you look at the current INQUA commissions , you'll see that they are no longer actively investigating sea level change
  • Try clicking on Coastal and marine processes and look for sea level. SEWilco
    • Ah yes, it appears there are still two smaller working-groups working on the topic in there. Leaders, and even members, of INQUA commissions are mandatorily rotated on a regular basis (with optional limited renewals for a term or two in some cases, see bye-laws for details). — Cortonin | Talk 15:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The IPCC lists Morner as a TAR reviewer. Anyone know where they published reviewer comments? SEWilco 08:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Weird or what? SEW "forgot" to copy over my comment on IPCC status, viz: IPCC TAR reviewer is a near-meaningless status of itself..

With its indentation, I didn't realize it was a reply. As a reply, it is not responsive as it does not answer the question: Anyone know where the IPCC published reviewer comments? (SEWilco 21:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC))

More Morner

(William M. Connolley 20:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)) So, the text which I've re-removed says:

The former INQUA commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution disagreed with the IPCC TAR results, and instead claimed that sea level rise had been measured as constant at around 1.5 mm/yr, and could likely be expected to continue at around that rate since no evidence of acceleration had been observed.

Now the ref above is just to the intro page, and the text sourced to it is not on that page. So where exactly on that site (to which I maintain all my objections above) does that text come from?

Right there in the first paragraph of the coastal section.

(William M. Connolley 21:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Right. And what does the bottom of that page say: yes, thats right: Informant: N.-A. Mörner, 1999: in other words, these are his words, not INQUAs.

INQUA doesn't have a mouth anymore than the NSF, NIH, or WHO has a mouth. INQUA is a scientific organization which has a congress which meets every four years, at which point they form commissions. This was one of them, he was its president, and that is their web page. THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT. There are 111 sea level experts who signed their names to that commission, and I trust them more than I trust your suspicion. — Cortonin | Talk 00:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Additional scientific criticism of the problems with the ocean models used for the IPCC prefered predictions which contradict the observations is also under Sea Level Changes. Now stop erasing that documentation. — Cortonin | Talk 21:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I restored the previous format which isolates IPCC studies and the relevant critique of them. Comments on the quality of IPCC sea level work are relevant to evaluation of their information. (SEWilco 21:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 21:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I don't know why you're doing this, but I especially don't understand what Apparently the referenced Question 5 in drafts is now Question 3. is supposed to mean.

OK, fixed that. (SEWilco 03:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC))

INQUA response on Morner

This from John Clague, president of INQUA (I wrote to them):

The INQUA Commission on Sea-Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, of which Nils-Axel Morner was President, terminated in August 2003 during the INQUA Congress in Reno. He was not removed as President. All existing INQUA commissions ended at that time during an organizational restructuring.

I don't know whether or not Dr. Morner's views about the IPCC TAR section on sea level change were representative of those of the Sea Level Commission at the time However, his views are definitely not representative of those of members of past and present INQUA Executive Committees. Dr. Morner is free to present his views on sea level change, but I have asked him, on behalf of the current Executive Committee, to cease using his former affiliation with INQUA to promote those views.

Sincerely,

John Clague

President, INQUA

Graft 18:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Sorry - I missed this before. I'd like to say, I have a similar mail, if anything rather stronger.

Rate of change

The intro implies that sea level rise has been accelerating recently.

The bulk of that occurred before 6 kyr ago. From 3000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant; since 1900 the level has risen at 1-2 mm/y; since 1992 at about 3 mm/y

I recall reading in contrast that sea level rise has been rather steady during the last few millenia.

I think that we should not state either POV positively as "common knowledge" but provide a source. Direct measurements, or sea floor sediment or other proxies, would also be nice.

(William M. Connolley 21:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I've added a source: well the one I used anyway: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/425.htm. The rise was "steady" but small for the past millenia before 100y ago. Ish.

Along with a description of the various points of view on the RATE of the rise, it would be nice to have some theories about the CAUSE of the rise.

(William M. Connolley 21:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Well its anthropogenic guv, innit? (The most recent increase, anyway).

Fred Singer called it a recovery from the ice age and said glaciers have been steadily melting for thousands of years. Let's source this, and if anyone says different, let's source that too.

(William M. Connolley 21:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)) FS is a dubious source for anything, IMHO. But you know what I think of him :-). The 0.1-0.2 mm/y is presumably

Note: this edit was made under the agreed-upon terms of the Misplaced Pages:climate change team and I therefore hold myself bound by those termes - regardless of what others may do! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:01, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Singer's statement from 8 years ago

Global sea level (SL) has undergone a rising trend for at least a century; its cause is believed to be unrelated to climate change . We observe, however, that fluctuations (anomalies) from a linear SL rise show a pronounced anti-correlation with global average temperature--and even more so with tropical average sea surface temperature. We also find a suggestive correlation between negative sea-level rise anomalies and the occurrence of El Nino events. These findings suggest that--under current conditions-- evaporation from the ocean with subsequent deposition on the ice caps, principally in the Antarctic, is more important in determining sea-level changes than the melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of ocean water. It also suggests that any future moderate warming, from whatever cause, will slow down the ongoing sea-level rise, rather than speed it up. Support for this conclusion comes from theoretical studies of precipitation increases and from results of General Circulation Models (GCMs) . Further support comes from the (albeit limited) record of annual ice accumulation in polar ice sheets .

(William M. Connolley 21:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)) FS's idea that increasing Ant precip will lower sea level enough to combat thermal expansion is wacky and taken seriously by no-one, which is why he has never published it. Mis-citing Bromwich in his support doesn't help.

Global Change Course at Iowa State University

Dr. Takle stated that it has been estimated that the oceans have risen by 1-2mm/yr. for the last one-hundred years (or about 4 inches total). There are many sources for error, however. These include interannual variations, meteorological and oceanic forcing, historic geographical bias, and vertical land movements. One important thing to note is that over the last 100 years, the rate at which the sea is rising has not increased.

(William M. Connolley 21:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I would guess that if you leave out the post-1990 data, that would be true.

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)

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.)

Satellite altimetry

"Satellite altimetry indicates an increase from a little less than 2 mm/y to somewhat above 3 mm/y."

No, satellite altimetry has not shown an acceleration, it simply reports a different rate than the land based measurements. The only way to interpret this as an acceleration is to think that the land based measurements were right, but are now wrong, and that the newer satellite measurements are accurate. The far more simpler explanation is that the newer satellite measurements are not yet calibrated perfectly. This is perfectly acceptable as long as we're not in some sort of rush to confirm a pre-expected result. — Cortonin | Talk 19:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)) The satellite people certainly don't think they have calibration problems large enough to explain the differnce. Perhaps you should try reading some of the papers?

(SEWilco 21:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Cortonin, you might check if these have been published. Deleted from the TAR.

Actually, the satellite people solved calibration problems by calibrating to match tide gauges. (SEWilco 22:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Clathrates & sea level drop

SEWilco recently added the following text:

Warming oceans can also cause reduced sea levels when methane or carbon dioxide is released from clathrate seafloor ice. Although at present this may cause sea level to fall by 10–146 cm, this can only happen when sufficient time has passed since a preceding change for such ices to accumulate. Such releases of large amounts of gas are also likely to have atmospheric effects.

The paper SEWilco is citing is 6 years out of date. Since then estimates for the magnitude of the modern clathrate reservoir have dropped more than an order of magnitude below the "low" estimate in the paper SEW cites. Mostly because people have finally begun digging up clathrates in volume and have come to realize that most methane ices are only at a few percent of saturation, rather than the 50-100% that people had been assumming. Hence the paper is basically irrelevant to modern climate change.

On longer time scales, I'm not sure. The modern ocean appears to be quite understaturated in methane ices (perhaps because of the high volatility of sea level during recent ice ages). So maybe at other periods in Earth's history there could be a methane reservoir orders of magnitude larger than present. And perhaps the dissociation of that methane could drop sea level by a geologically significant amount. The methane pulse would obviously have the biggest impact on climate, but that might be limited to 100-250 kyr, whereas the ice displacement could last longer. Whether there would ever be enough of a shift to be geologically noticably, I don't know. Dragons flight 00:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Estimates have dropped below 2E14 m3? A 100m drop glacial sea level drop should only reduce clathrate by 10%, although other changes may have cleared the field. And I didn't emphasize an atmospheric pulse because methane tends to dissolve in the water when slowly released. (SEWilco 23:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC))

My notes give Milkov 2004, Earth Science Reviews, with clathrate inventory figure of 500-2500 GtC (gigatons carbon), with the author favoring the low end of that range. The more commonly quoted number is 10000 GtC, and much larger numbers exist so I assume that 2e14 comes from a reference not a lot smaller than 10000 GtC (I didn't look at the paper in detail). I may have overstated the drop depending on the details, but roughly 10000 to roughly 1000 would be an order of magnitude. At the very least it suggests something on the low end of the 10-146 cm range you state. Dragons flight 23:55, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

GtC. Try volume in your source. (1–5)×10^15 m^3. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2003.11.002 I believe 2E14 m^3 is Milkov 2001. (SEWilco 07:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Okay. Sorry. Thanks. I guess that means Milkov is predicting only 100 GtC in the clathrates? Incidentally, does it strike anyone else as weird that clathrate volumes are reported with respect to the eqivalent gas volume at STP? Screwed with my head when trying to convert GtC to volume on the back of the envelope. Dragons flight 08:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Get a helmet and a bigger envelope. The volume needed for this article is clathrate volume. Compared to volume of the contained water in liquid form (with methane having dissolved or escaped to atmosphere). (SEWilco 19:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC))

I know that, but the volume stated in the Earth Science Review article are volume of gas equivalent at STP. Given the comparable size scale, I assume that is the form of the number quoted in the abstract of your article. I also assume it is straight forward to convert STP volumes to solid clathrate volumes, and that your article does that at some point in calculating the displacement volume. Dragons flight 20:27, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Explicable

(William M. Connolley 19:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)) SEW has insisted on adding The current rise in sea level observed from tide gauges, of about 1.8 mm/y, is not explicable by the combination of factors above.... Its not clear where he gets this from. The IPCC states: The sum of these components indicates a rate of eustatic sea level rise (corresponding to a change in ocean volume) from 1910 to 1990 ranging from –0.8 to 2.2 mm/yr, with a central value of 0.7 mm/yr. The upper bound is close to the observational upper bound (2.0 mm/yr), but the central value is less than the observational lower bound (1.0 mm/yr), i.e., the sum of components is biased low compared to the observational estimates. which is inconsistent with his text, but consistent with my text: "just about explicable". I was going to add that to the text, but I find that is already there, so SEW's text remains mysterious to me.

See the other changes which were made at the same time in Sea_level_rise#Conflicting_information, which state that there are conflicts in matching observations to factors. (SEWilco 20:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC))

I swapped it from "just about" to "within the estimate range". The ranges are quite wide, so that's about as far as the conclusions can go. In addition, the phrase "just about" should be avoided, because if you didn't notice, it means different things depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on. To Americans, "just about" usually means "almost", while to the British, "just about" usually means "just barely". — Cortonin | Talk 22:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just about got the torch out of my boot before the lift caught fire. (SEWilco 22:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Morner / INQUA commission

I appreciate the desire to remove mention of the INQUA commission from the Morner section in order to avoid editing conflict here, but I believe this omission is improper. At the time of the reference, Morner was president of that INQUA commission, authorized to coordinate communication within the commission and then speak on behalf of the commission reporting the results of that, and the reference states "Our INQUA Commission ... has a totally different view," which no members of that INQUA Commission have come forward to dispute. (The executive who says Morner does not speak on behalf of the "executive committee" was not, to my knowledge, a member of this particular commission.) — Cortonin | Talk 18:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think if a group of researchers work together to form a conclusion, then it is improper to attribute that conclusion to only one researcher, as it minimizes the contributions others have made. As Morner claims he was speaking on behalf of the commission and representing their views, and no member of the commission has stated otherwise, then I think we have to characterize it as such here for proper attribution of credit. — Cortonin | Talk 18:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree with you, but in this case there seem to be some concerns that Morner's abused his position as president to push his own point of view. Obviously, a key issue in dispute is whether or not the statements Morner wrote were actually representative of the views of the Commission at that time. For the record, of the 8 officers on the current executive commission, 1 is listed on the former sea level commission. And as a matter of fact, that officer is the current president, John Clague, who is also the individual above who wrote that he did not know if Morner's opinion was representative of the Sea Level Commission at that time.

Given the ambiguity on whether Morner was properly representing Commission views, I would be willing to accept compromise language to the effect that he made those statements while head of the INQUA commission, with the implication that he had plentiful opportunity for consultation, but while still avoiding the disputed issue of whether those statements were adequately representative of the Commission's views as a whole.

One thing that we could do is email other officers / members of the former INQUA sea level commission and see if they feel that Morner's statements were truly representative of the commissions views at that time. Dragons flight 19:19, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing any prominent questioning that the reference above is the view of the commission at that time. The only prominent questioning presented was this reference by the current INQUA executive committee president about whether or not Morner claimed at a seminar that he IS the sea level commission president or that he WAS the sea level commission president. I think at best this counts as someone angry at a rumor, and it seems clear that he's angry more because of the views Morner is expressing than because of the rumor he heard. This might seem important to people looking for ways to discredit people promoting a certain view, such as on the sites hosting that document, but I don't think it's particularly pertinent to the discussion here, since it doesn't directly question the content of the reference. — Cortonin | Talk 02:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that we don't need to clarify the amount of consultation he had with the commission, since it's not specifically described in the reference. It just shouldn't be presented as only his conclusion since the reference implies that others helped him formulate it. I think we can write it most clearly by something along the lines of "Nils-Axel Morner, then President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, reported the commission's conclusion...". (Perhaps with something equivalent, but better worded, in place of "reported the commission's conclusion") — Cortonin | Talk 02:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about: "Nils-Axel Morner, acting in his capacity as President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, stated: ..."? That would seem to convey the view that it was more than just his opinion while avoiding the question of how much input the commision had in forming this conclusion.

However, I do think that if this is expressed as an official view, then neutrality requires that it be noted that INQUA as a whole does not presently endorse this view. I would suggest adding a note to the end of the statement saying something like: "More recently, the Executive Commission of INQUA has stated that these views do not represent the opinion of INQUA as a whole." Dragons flight 03:29, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think your proposed statement is an acceptable wording, even if a little overly-formal sounding. As for the disclaimer, I don't think this is necessarily necessary. By written INQUA policy, the conclusions of commissions never officially represent the view of INQUA as a whole, which is a reasonably standard thing for any scientific society which desires to preserve academic freedom (in order to keep politics out of science). I'm not even sure if the executive committee is authorized to speak on behalf of the scientific views of INQUA as a whole, so at best it could be said that the current executive committee has expressed disagreement with whatever view Morner happened to be promoting at the seminar in question (which is not necessarilly the sea level rise issue). — Cortonin | Talk 19:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but most readers of Misplaced Pages are not likely to know about INQUA policy, or for that matter the conventions of scientific organizations. Nor would I neccesarily agree that this is a standard thing. Several of the major societies have political lobbying wings (e.g. , , , ), which to varying degrees define the official position of the organization. I should note that such policy directions are often set by the elected representatives within the organization rather than a more direct poll of membership, or similar consensus building exercise. In this sense, it would be common to consider the executive commission of INQUA, as the elected representatives of the organization, to have the authority to speak on behalf of the organization as a whole. Also, I believe the above posted email from John Clague is quite clear that the Executive Commission is specifically rejecting Morner's criticism of the IPCC TAR sea level section, which is directly the content of the quote we would be disclaiming. As before, I definately believe that a disclaimer is appropriate, but I would certainly entertain alternative ways for how to phrase it, if you or others have suggestions. Dragons flight 20:08, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Clague reference states that he's responding to criticisms of "climate science" that Morner made in July of 2004, which was well past the date of the Morner reference being discussed, which was on sea level rise. It's possible that Morner was lecturing on the exact same topic, but this is by no means specified. — Cortonin | Talk 22:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same reference: Talk:Sea level rise#INQUA response on Morner? Seems to be on sea level change to me. Dragons flight 22:48, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, we're talking about different ones. I'm referring to this reference. Although the email pasted into this talk page makes it more clear that Clague is only speaking on behalf of the executive committee, and not for the entirety of INQUA. However, I would say the president of an executive committee of a scientific society has no authority to order someone to stop speaking about the conclusions reached in a former commission, or to change the contents of his or her resume, CV, or introduction. I think this talk page has simply gotten in the middle of two people who don't get along on a personal level, and this has nothing to do with the topic being described here. — Cortonin | Talk 23:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for the other scientific societies, their political lobbying wings are typically only supporting political positions, relating to funding or policy about science. This doesn't usually include making statements about science. (The APS for example has a statement about nuclear testing not being necessary for the U.S., but this is about policy rather than science.) Policy can be set by elected representatives, but decisions about science aren't typically made by elected representatives. But you are right that readers should not be expected to know of such customs. I would say that if someone could verify that Morner was lecturing on sea level rise at the July 2004 seminar being disputed, then it would be okay to include a comment that claims the "current" executive committee of INQUA disputes this. But if he was lecturing on some other more general topic, then the executive committee's comments only apply in that they express dislike or disapproval of Morner, which would be relevant on a Morner page, but I would think not here. — Cortonin | Talk 22:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Nils-Axel Morner, speaking for a Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, stated: ..." INQUA doesn't get blame nor credit. (SEWilco 22:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC))

(Too many colons, resetting indent) I would accept SEWilco's compromise without disclaimer. If we don't specifically attribute the position to INQUA, I am willing to ignore the fact that prominent members within INQUA disagree with Morner's position. I would suggest one small change however to: "Nils-Axel Morner, speaking as president of a Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, stated: ..." Saying that he speaks "for" them suggests a level of approval for his statements that doesn't seem to be well established. Dragons flight 23:28, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Regional Sea Level Rise

WMC added a comment about sea level rise not being globally uniform. This is true and fine and good, but I think it is likely to appear rather wacky to the casual observer. After all, you put more water in a bucket and it is going to go up uniformly.

I would like to add a sentence or two explaining why it is not uniform. However, I don't really understand the issue well enough myself. For the most part you are talking about the impacts of local climate changes shaping (or reshaping) the height of the ocean, yes? For example a consistent wind can work against gravity to keep parts of the ocean a little bit higher than other parts, right?

Is this the dominant contribution to regional variability? I also believe that the regions with the most anomalous behavior will be places like Scandanavia and Canada where you still have large glacial rebounds going on. Of course, that won't effect most parts of the world.

Could someone, perhaps WMC, clarify this issue?

Dragons flight 20:44, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I believe that the prime ref for this is Gregory, 2001 (see IPCC). I'm not sure really of the balance of effects, but some of them are: dynamics (ocean circ changes); inverse barometer; salinity changes; T changes.

Removing Florida

(William M. Connolley 17:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)) I removed:

Some evidence also suggests that, during the Medieval Warm Period, sea level in Florida stood 0.5 m higher than today between 1200-700 years BP (Fairbridge, 1974; Stapor and others, 1991).

This evidence appears incompatible with the history of SRL, and is far more likely to be accounted for by more local movements.

"SRL"? (SEWilco 18:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 19:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)) Sea Rise Level. Oops. SLR. Alternatively, Steve R Leonard, an ex-roommate of mine.

WMC, presumably you mean that there is some widely agreed upon body of evidence that would be incompatible with a sea level 0.5 m higher than today 1000 years ago. If such evidence does exist could you provide some citations? As far as I have been aware, the available data has basically been too erratically spaced in time or of too poor vertical resolution to adequately constrain sub-meter fluctuations on centennial time scales once one goes more than a few hundred years into the past. Which is not the same as saying that the Florida result is right, but I'm not aware of measurements that would compel me to dismiss it out of hand. Dragons flight 21:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 14:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)) I hoped you would comment. The chances are you know more about it than me. I can try to dig out some citations though. Those Florida data do seem to be contested, though I don't know whether there is a current mainstream interpretation.

I'm not sure there is much about sea level fine structure that isn't contested. This cartoon , I think is a pretty good representation of the debate (even though from a dubious source). Most everyone who tries to measure sea level fine structure sees wiggles. Some accept those wiggles as true eustatic variations and other ascribe them to measurement uncertainty and local variability, and argue that the true curve is much smoother. Historical accounts and port cities tell us that the variations can't have been huge, but once you get down to the 30-50 cm level there don't seem to be a lot of constraints, or at least that was the opinion I formed the last time I went trolling in this area. Maybe the field has matured since then. Depending on what turns up, the best thing to do may simply be to say that A says this and B says that, and the truth is still undecided. Dragons flight 15:35, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)) There is:

The geological indicators of past sea level are usually not sufficiently precise to enable fluctuations of sub-metre amplitude to be observed. In some circumstances high quality records do exist. These are from tectonically stable areas where the tidal range is small and has remained little changed through time, where no barriers or other shoreline features formed to change the local conditions, and where there are biological indicators that bear a precise and consistent relationship to sea level. Such areas include the micro-atoll coral formations of Queensland, Australia (Chappell, 1982; Woodroffe and McLean, 1990); the coralline algae and gastropod vermetid data of the Mediterranean (Laborel et al., 1994; Morhange et al., 1996), and the fresh-to-marine transitions in the Baltic Sea (Eronen et al., 1995; Hyvarinen, 1999). These results all indicate that for the past 3,000 to 5,000 years oscillations in global sea level on time-scales of 100 to 1,000 years are unlikely to have exceeded 0.3 to 0.5 m. Archaeological evidence for this interval places similar constraints on sea level oscillations (Flemming and Webb, 1986). Some detailed local studies have indicated that fluctuations of the order of 1 m can occur (e.g., Van de Plassche et al., 1998) but no globally consistent pattern has yet emerged, suggesting that these may be local rather than global variations.

from http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/423.htm#1131

Which seems to basically amount to: We probably aren't fluctuating more than 0.5 m, but the IPCC isn't prepared to commit to saying much more than that. This is probably about the tack we need to be taking. Incidentally, several of the micro-atoll people (e.g. Woodroffe) present fairly strong evidence, in the form of former coral formations now above low tide, that sea level at many of these islands had to be at least a little higher than present at some point during the last 3000 years. However, other authors (e.g. Morhange) argue that sea level has never been higher than modern day. One fairly strong piece of evidence on that side is a paleolithic cave painting half submerged under present sea level, but which is only smudged below present sea level and not above it (i.e. sea level was never higher than now at this location) See Figure 7: . Of course some of these effects may reflect unrecognized local tectonic variability. Dragons flight 21:34, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I found a fairly good related paper doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(98)00198-8, which shows among other things the multi-meter scatter that can be observed in measurements over the last 10 kyr. Whether this is signal or noise is a basically the essence of the debate. This paper basically treats it as noise. Also, the IPCC cites doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(99)00289-7 for the notion that sea level rises 0.1-0.2 mm/yr on average over the last 3000 years, but I can't see where this claim is supported in the source which basically shows constant sea level over the last 3 kyr (plus some scatter, Figure 8b). Dragons flight 21:34, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Breaking up this article

I would like to propose that this article be broken into two bits. One to stay here discussing global warming related sea level rise and offer some perspective since the last glacial maximum, and another to reinstate sea level change (presently a redirect to here) and deal with longer term records and processes unrelated to modern global warming. Dragons flight 00:27, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)) OK by me. You're the person to do it.

Waaaay too complicated

Listen, I know that this is a very complicated and contested subject, but I feel that the[REDACTED] entry is too complicated. Too many charts, too many quotes, not enough readability. I came to this page wanting to learn about Sea Level Rise, and am leaving knowing little more than when I came. Could someone who understands and has digested all of this, trim down the quotes and tables into more readable summaries? --MatthewJ 23:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC) <-(actually a fairly intelligent human being)

Yeah, yeah, we all know it's complicated. Part of the problem is that this is Misplaced Pages's only article on sea level changes right now. There is a stated intention to create an article on long-term sea level change and pare this down to just the recent sea level rise, but those of us qualified to do it, haven't been rushing to it.  ;-) Dragons flight 00:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the break, but I'd suggest that maybe sea level would be the article to place that material. In particular, the short-term changes table would happily move across from here to sea level, plus geological changes, and then develop from there. Rd232 21:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of the figures contradict each other

• In "Glaciers and ice caps": 68.8 m rise if all antarctic and greenland melts

• "Geological influences": 80 m

• "Greenland contribution": 7 m in at least 1000 years

• "Polar ice": >60 m for Antarctica and 7 m for Greenland (why here again?), Greenland needs at last 1500 years to deglaciate

Where do these figures come from and why do they differ so much (80m vs. 67m, 1000 vs 1500a)? Are there other contradictions I have overlooked?

Side note: Why are the figures for Greenland and glaciers (repeated) in the "polar ice" section? 217.185.37.70 10:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC) (sorry, no account in the english wikipedia)

There are indeed several estimates for various sources. There is no single number to use. (SEWilco 15:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC))

SEWilco bot's changes

SEWilco today converted the inline links of this article to his pet footnote style. He is well aware that other editors of climate related articles are opposed to this change and is currently the subject of an RFC and ARBCom case in part related to similar undiscussed changes on other climate articles. I have posted this undiscussed change as evidence on the arbcom case . I would appreciate it if SEW would revert his changes and instead seek consensus here. Vsmith 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone posted unsourced material. I updated with a source, and provided details on the source in the Notes section. I also am a significant contributor to this article, and I maintained the existing style of numbered links while adding my source. If the article is owned by someone please label it as such. The Notes section contains details about sources which are preferred by Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy. (SEWilco 20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

If there's consensus on the page to change to footnotes, you won't find me interfering, SEW, but you can't go around imposing your own preference against objections. And please stop quoting policy in your favor, because WP:V says embedded links are acceptable, and WP:CITE says where there is disagreement about citation style, defer to the style used by the first contributor. Please understand that these single-issue style campaigns — whether against footnotes, BCE, or particular spellings — always cause trouble. SlimVirgin 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:V also prefers more citation detail over minimal information. I followed the numerical link style. Stop deleting information. (SEWilco 07:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

Can you show me where WP:V says that, please? SlimVirgin 07:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• OK, in addition to the recent poll :
• "The goal of Misplaced Pages is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be verified by readers and other editors."
• "add a full citation in the References section"
• "note that Misplaced Pages:Cite sources is not policy: providing some information about your sources is more important than using a particular format."
• "It is unreasonable to expect other editors to dig for sources to check your work, particularly when the initial content is questionable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore be specific, avoid weasel words, and provide references,"
• "adding a full citation for Smith 2005 in the References section at the end of the article"

(SEWilco 08:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

Where does it say, as you keep claiming "WP:V also prefers more citation detail over minimal information"? It doesn't say that anywhere. It requests some citation information in the form of embedded links or Harvard references in the text, with full citation information in the References section, or in the Notes section if footnotes have been used. Failing that, it says it prefers some source information over none, and adds that the format ultimately doesn't matter. Nowhere does it say what you have been claiming of it for months. SlimVirgin 08:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"A spokesperson" is not enough of a source, giving the name of the spokesperson is better, and identification of the source, author, and publisher should be made. Also says that sources have to be identifiable for credibility, full citations should be given, information about sources is important, references should not require digging, add a full citation... Maybe you should look back at a version from months ago before your editing also. (SEWilco 09:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

SEW - please stop this nonsense. The issue is not information, its you trying to push your pet reference style. William M. Connolley 15:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC).

The issue is information. WP:V and WP:CITE require more complete references, whether you prefer unsupported claims or not. (SEWilco 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

The issue is SEWilco obstinately pushing his notes system against consensus - see the current arbitration case. Neither WP:V nor WP:CITE require footnotes, more information is easily added into a proper references section without the redundant footnotes as you well know. I would reccommend that you consider the consequences of your contemptuous actions in view of the link provided above. Vsmith 04:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue is information. I added citation information while retaining the existing style. Read the repeated bold text in WP:CITE about required reference section information. (SEWilco 06:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

SEW, you are descending into madness here. Look at the proposed decision Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2/Proposed_decision - you just cannot get away with this stuff. Your apparent inability/refusal to hear what people are trying to tell you does you no good. Please listen to reason. William M. Connolley 21:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC).

Whatever it says, the "Proposed decision" was not based on evidence so I stopped participating. Other required parties also never participated, which is part of the reason the case has been invalid since it began. (SEWilco 06:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Look above at my hearing and responding to people. Look above at people who are not hearing what I am saying. Or else who don't care about information, rules, and policy. (SEWilco 06:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Dead links

Added some inliners to ref section. Found a couple dead ones: #17 http://www.pog.su.se/sea/HP-14.%20IPCC-3.pdf leads to a 404. Also #21 http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article301493.ece leads to the current days news, a search for the Greenland glacier brings up a start of the article - but subscription required for full article. These are also problems on SEW's notes. Vsmith 02:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So fix the citations. The failures are hinted at in the citations when the title is a URL. (SEWilco 06:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Obsolete references

Some of the entries in References are not mentioned in the article text, so I could not link to them. Are any of those References without backlinks still in use, or have edits removed their associated text? (SEWilco 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Stuff

I've rm'd:

Over the last million years the sea level has changed by tens of meters many times, while many fewer variations of as much as 100 meters have taken place. Although during the past million years the sea level has generally been lower than it presently is, over geologic time scales the sea level has often been 100-200 meters higher than in recent times.

I don't think this belongs in the intro of the page as it stands. Maybe it belongs in the split up version as per DF's idea.

SEW: I don't know what you've done to improve the refs. But whatever you do will all be lost if you persist in pushing against what everyone else wants. I certainly don't have the patience to go checking through a pile of minor changes. How about listing whatever cleanup the refs need, that would actually be a useful service. William M. Connolley 09:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

The sumamry of the range of sea level change seems appropriate for an introduction on the subject. The cleanup was being done, and you're authorized to delete stuff that you don't have time to "check"? Do you need instructions on how to create a 'diff' of a range of revisions? (SEWilco 05:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

• Peer review requests not specifying archive