Talk:Wilkins Sound

melt down

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

POV? How can a piece of ice shelf 'breaking-off' be due to climate change? We all know that things are warming-up rapidly down there, and the jury is still out on why. If it had melted, that would be another matter, but it's very much a piece of still-frozen ICE that has detached itself. ChrisRed (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a glaciologist, but I understand that ice can have different temperatures, resulting in different levels of stability.--Ratzer (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Try Google "model of temperature gradients in ice shelves"

[[2]] Tempreture profiles of ice shelves.

Fair enough, but I just feel that this knee-jerk tendency to automatically 'blanket-blame' all phenomena on climate change is actually doing harm to the case. Something serious is happening, and I daresay that the activities of man are at least partially responsible, but climate change is only one of a list of possible causes for what is in reality just the calving of an exceptionally-large iceberg. The likely cause of which is probably more mechanical than thermal. ChrisRed (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have chosen to revert my changes. Its a simple waste of typing.

Restoring Censored Comments:

1. No doubt there is something going on, I don't doubt that the climate is changing, but for all we know the ice shelves could have been breaking-off and re-freezing like this for hundreds of thousands of years. No human would have seen it happen until the last century or so. As for the majority of scientists - well if you want your research grant approved for next year, you need to sing the right song...been there, done it! ChrisRed (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Hmmm. So why hasn't it just gradually melted and retreated back inland from the sea, like every other glacier on the planet does?. Maybe it's a new type of ice. Must apply for a grant to go and see :-) ChrisRed (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am far from being a climate change doubter, but I do have problems with that sentence "The recent collapse of this portion of the ice shelf is believed to be the result of global warming." My main problem is that it conveys very little information. What I want to know from an article like this is why such a large chunk broke off, the processes that lie behind a contiguous crack over such a long distance. To people ignorant of the subject (most people are, including myself to a certain extent), the common sense result of global warming is that ice will melt. Perhaps faster spawning of icebergs, that sort of thing. What we need is supporting information as to HOW global warming caused the breakoff, rather than such a bare statement.

Thanks. Its a large scale structure problem. Ever hear ice crack when dropped into hot coffee? Its the rapidity of the change that produces the pargest cracking. For large ice structures, its a small equibrium, there is little change, with larger changes, you get more dramatic results.

Better to say:

"The recent collapse of this portion of the ice shelf is attributed,[ by climatelogits, glacilogits, and climate modelers ] to be the result of global warming."

Does that reflect the credibility of the statement?

Having said that, the sentence is also perfectly correct, with the important word being 'believed'. This is adequately sourced, as it stems from a direct quote by a scientist. However, there is no supporting information given in the source to back up the scientists statement. The effect of the sentence on the average reader is that it is a statement of fact that the breakoff was caused by global warming. This is inadequately sourced. I am going to take out the following statement "The recent collapse of this portion of the ice shelf is believed to be the result of global warming." The part that follows, about the warming of the peninsular contains sufficient information, and is specific enough, for the reader to reach the same conclusion without requiring the use of a convenient catch-phrase. 86.137.148.73 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Just stick to the facts. It is a fact that a disturbingly-large chunk of ice has detached itself, and it is a fact that the eminent Professor David Vaughan predicted five years ago that the ice shelf would disappear due to Global Warming. This is why there is a small army of scientists down there trying to actually pin-down the cause(s)...it can't be just so simple, or we could have sent just one 'on message' man with a thermometer and a radio. ChrisRed (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if they had concrete proof that the earth was round, you would still deny it.

If you signed your post, I would do you the courtesy of actually reading your comments before remarking on them. Where do I deny that GW is happening? (although in reality it appears more like a temperature 'redistribution' between zones, which is perhaps equally disturbing). p.s. the earth is spherical b.t.w. ChrisRed (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Name of the Wilkins ice shelf

If the Wilkins ice shelf disappears altogether does it get a new name or is it just absorbed into Wilkins Sound? The Globally-warmed Sea?, The-sea-formerly-known-as-wilkins-ice-shelf Sea? Maybe there should be a naming competition. SpinningSpark 17:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How about Drink? THe Wilkins drink? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Units

Why are miles and square miles given primacy over metric units? Metric should be first a) because it's a science article and b) because the original raw data will have been in metric units. Blaise (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't a "science article".

Second, your claim that "the original raw data will have been in metric units" is pure speculation.

Some of are given first when they are the original measurements; likewise, the 14,000 km² was originally metric. The conversions in both cases were added by Wikipedians. The original measurements give a better indication of the precision involved, something that was particularly noticeable when the Main Page entry about this talked about a "160 square mile (414.4 km²)" (not certain about whether or not both were spelled out) chunk, using that improper precision in their conversion before there were any conversions in this article.

Even if your speculation were correct, that number might quite well have been originally 420 km², which would also convert to the 160 mi² which has appeared in the article from the beginning, before Wikipedia editors including me added the conversions. But unless you come up with some reliable sources showing either that 420 km² or the 410 km² someone else gratuitously pretended to be the original measurement to in fact have been the original measurement, we do not know if one of them or the other, or neither of them, was the original measurement. The best number we have in that 160 mi². Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, even if we do assume that "the original raw data" was metric, and the 160 mi² was converted therefrom, we don't know what that raw data said. The original raw data could have been anywhere in between about 400 km² and 430 km² (or even up to 440 km² if truncated to the next lower 10 mi² rather than rounded to the nearest 10) to arrive at that 160 mi² number, depending on the precise conversion factor used (people sometimes use factors without enough precision for the results they get) and other factors. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mistaken but it seems to be the NSIDC press release is most likely to contain the original assessement, and this gives 405 square kilometres as the primary unit [3] and the 160 square miles as contained the AP article was simply taken from the press release. After all, the AP article even links to the NSIDC. While pure speculation, I also don't see how you would get 405 square kilometres from 160 square miles, but I can easily understand how you would derive 160 squre miles from 405 square kilometres Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I just realised that when you made the change, it was not clear that the NSIDC reference could be used for the 405 square kilometre/160 square mile as it was only later someone changed the references [4] so that it was clear what that NSIDC was referencing the 405 square kilometre/160 square mile bit. So I've made the change to put 405 square kilometres as the primary unit. Hopefully there are no objections to this change. I agree with your original assessment that changing it to 410/415/414.14? was a bad idea since the best estimation we had at the time was 160 square miles and 414.14 was likely false precision Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

QED. The gratuitous change by User:Michael Zimmermann, to treat 410 km² as primary, was wrong. I'm with you on the change to 405 km² now.

The mention of that press release in the AP article really ties it up neatly. In addition, it is quite likely that someone would covert 405 km² to 160 mi², but it is unlikely that someone would convert 160 mi² to 405 km².

I'd go with three significant digits in the result now: 156 km². The other options are 155 km² or 160 km²; you almost always have to pick from among a slightly overprecise and a slightly underprecise conversion.

This is also, of course, as a "breaking event", a measurement that could change over time, as the result of factors such as higher resolution photographs, more precisely known scale factors, and better tools with with to do the calculations come into play. That's why the mention of one article in the other is especially important. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you want on the main page? The source says "405 square kilometers (160 square miles)" which is what I am inclined to go with. (See WP:ERROR Link for context.) Woody (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not that important

Why is this front page? 02:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)~SAB

It is something that is happening/ has happened recently. So it is news. And it is a fairly unusual event. I imagine that lots of people find it interesting, from climate change nuts to people just interested in the world around us. I know I was! Just because you may not find it interesting does not mean it is not important. I imagine that if the news contained just what people find interesting, it would rapidly get clogged with articles about celebrity's plastic surgery. 86.137.148.73 (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is much more important than any celebrity's nose job. It is significant in that it is a major section of an ice shelf that has collapsed during a time when global climate change is at the forefront of world policy and science. Another nail in the coffin? -- Riffsyphon1024 (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now its the top article on the front page. Wait until the ozone hole opens over the north pole. That should make the news too. ( predicted by .... ) I realize that what is being proposed, in terms of the heath risks, is not well known. Neither is Dr Drew Schndell's prediction of the recovery of the ozone hole, taking 150 years. How old are you Children? Do you even know the names of your great grand parents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason why it is the 'top article' is because it is the most recent item. ITN items are sorted by chronological order. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Global warming?

This is a very interesting article. One could make an argument that this is due to a temperature change; however, I agree that blaming every event pertaining to weather and temperature on global warming hurts the case for it. The Earth has been warming up steadily since the last "ice age," right? Maybe we haven't finished thawing out. Perhaps it isn't all our fault after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.199.75 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussions on the article subject and in any case, if you do want to have a discussion somewhere (not on wikipedia) about global warming, I suggest you start reading a few articles since it appears your understanding of it is somewhat limited. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Spinningspark, with your background I would have expected more than a two-minute review of the internal links I provided as reference to my entry before coming to a decision to reject it as POV. The basis of my premise is best summarized by studying the "2000 Year Temperature Comparison" graph in the Little Ice Age article. By interpolation (or curve fitting), you will see that the warming trend preceding that cooling period would coincide with the warming we are experiencing now. More than 50 years ago, I became aware of this from a lecture on ice ages in a Geology course. The professor pointed out that the recovery following the Little Ice Age (not known by that name then) will result in noticeable warming by sometime around 2000 to 2010, and if this did not prove to be correct, then another ice age could be imminent. His prediction has proven to be correct by subsequent research, and I have been following its progress ever since. In short, we should consider the past millennium in determining the reasoning for what's happening today, not just the past century or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.255.58 (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for you, or any wikipedian to derive anything by studying the "2000 year temperature comparison" graph, even worse when you start interpolating data. Unless and until you have a reliable source which supports your claim, then it is WP:original research. If you are so sure your analysis is correct, I suggest you try to have it published. Nil Einne (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, it is inappropriate for YOU Nil, to tell others what to do. You are certinaly no expert, and the sources 99 cites ARE EXPERTS. You:

A. Dont believe secondary scientific sources

B. Dont believe in primary scientific sources

C. Do not posess any sembelance of training to intrepret the data yourself, and

D. Do not believe that anyone else: i.e. professional scientists, researchers, climtologts.

Therefore You are stuck with ignorance on all sides. Go join the ostrich society, your wasting your typing skills trying to contribute to a discussion that you only have a closed mind for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is entirely appropriate for me to tell you what is and is not appropriate to do on wikipedia. And it is indeed inappropriate for you, or anyone else to conduct original research on wikipedia. If a reliable secondary source has carried out this interpolation you are talking about, then you are welcome to bring it and we can discuss whether to include it in the article. Until then, please take your irrelevant commentary elsewhere. And really I have no idea what you are talking about, since professional scientists, reseachers and climatologists wholeheartedly agree that anthropogenic global warming is a contributing factor in the acceleration of the melting and breaking up of the polar ice caps. If you are unable to accept this, then I would respectfully suggest that it is you who have a 'closed mind'. May I suggest you stay away from Fox News and look for more respectable news sources when trying to gauge what scientists believe. In any case, as I've said multiple times, this is not the place for such a discussion. BTW, it doesn't matter whether I'm an expert. If you are an expert, I suggest you publish your research which shows that anthropogenic global warming is not responsible in a reliable source and we can discuss whether to include it in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did not revert the edit of 255.38 because I disagreed with his analysis of data in other articles. I reverted it because he was re-inserting previously deleted material with the claim that references were now provided. In fact, no references were provided so I reverted. Other Wikipedia articles do not count as reliable sources (they are not peer reviewed) however much I were to study the data in them as suggested. Also for the record, I was already aware of the Little Ice Age and the current Interglacial Period. It makes no difference, 255.38 has still not provided a citeable reference. SpinningSpark 12:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with most of the above arguments, including the fact that this article may not be the right forum, I do not condone the personal accusations and squabbling that this evoked. I would like to point out that I have NOT indicated a denial of global warming (just offering a plausible explanation) nor have I ever commented one way or another regarding the anthropogenic influence, or any estimate of the degree of such. And, regarding Spinningspark's reasoning for undoing my entry, most of those links I offered included many references and external links that serve as support for the facts presented therein. But before outright accepting the media and IPCC conclusions, it is appropriate to also review and understand the various arguments shown here. In short, there are two (even multiple) sides to an issue like this and both (all) must have equal voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.255.58 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

99, That's a wholly inaccurate assessment of your "addition" to the article--you stated, as a fact, that the break-up of the ice shelf was NOT due to human-induced warming, despite the scientific analysis described in the article ("while this may be construed as further evidence of global warming, it simply signifies another incident in the continuing process of" your theory). Moreover, when 99%+ of scientists conclude that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that anthropogenic causes explain the rapid global warming over the past decades, the few contrarians who claim otherwise (many of which are paid shills for petroleum interests) do not require "equal voice." 68.100.242.114 (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

68, my point was that the current warming trend seems to tie in with the trend before the Little Ice Age. I do not intend to imply any anthropogenic connection, one way or the other, to climate change. Those scientists you call a "few contrarians" include a great many well-respected experts and university leaders. Take a look at this list of them and try to justify branding them all "paid shills for petroleum interests." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.255.58 (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You implied a lack of causation; there is no other way to read the portion of your edit quoted above. It's climate change denial. In any event, your personal opinion about the Wilkins shelf breakup (which is to the contrary of, you know, the actual scientists cited in the article) is not appropriate for a wikipedia entry, as others have noted here. Scrivener (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your interpretation, but it was not denial, rather an effort to put the current warming trend, which I have always acknowledged is real, on a scale of the interglacial period (millennia) rather than a century or two. My reasoning is that the Little Ice Age constitutes a kink in the interglacial warming curve, and it only ended about 150 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.255.58 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The shelf itself is made up of ice a few thousand years old. Temperature has risen by 2.5C so the ice IS collapsing by warming temperatures of the surrounding seas and air. This at least has to be accepted irrespective of man-made cause or not. -Adrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.57.171 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is rapidly turning into a forum argument. In my opinion, if you wish to write that global warming was a possible cause, you can, but since no reliable sources have said that it is THE cause, it is no more than a possible cause for now. Try to stick with the article rather than discussing irrelevancies. Annihilatron (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible breakoff real soon now

New rifts form on Antarctic ice shelf discusses a fracture that could result in a split. I'm not going to edit the article yet, let's wait to see if it actually splits. In case the link rots, search the internets for "(CNN) -- Scientists have identified new rifts on an Antarctic ice shelf that could lead to it breaking away from the Antarctic Peninsula, the European Space Agency said."

There are some other things in that CNN article that might belong here but I'll leave it up to the experts and regular editors of Antarctic-related articles to decide what's encyclopedic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wilkins Ice Shelf should be separate article - not "hidden" in Wilkins Sound

Wilkins Ice Shelf should be separate article - not "hidden" in Wilkins Sound.

I propose that all material relating to Wilkins Ice Shelf be moved to that page with a small introduction being left in this article with a link to the main article. At the moment there is virtually nothing about Wilkins Sound other than Wilkins Ice Shelf. The tail is wagging the dog. dinghy (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest. Soon there's no need for such an article, there are way too much articles in wikipedia already. 130.232.109.118 (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The format it is in now is functional, as the ice shelf is within the sound, and it still makes sense. Unless you want to start adding information about the ecology /etc of the sound, its in the correct format. If the shelf completely detaches and becomes its own (one-piece) iceberg, maybe then we'd have to think about it, since it might be more notable in that case.Annihilatron (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand much of Annihilation's comment. I am inclined to agree with Phanly (dinghy) on this. Many ice shelves of this size or smaller have their own pages and apart from the discovery info about the sound nobody seems to have added anything apart from info on the ice shelf. If Phanly wants to make up a new page on the ice shelf and shift the info to that, leaving the WSound page intact with the discovery info and with a small section on the ice self plus appropriate link to the main ice shelf article that would work just fine. Polargeo (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thickness?

What is the thickness (height above ocean level) of the ice shelf? 98.211.105.148 (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs to be updated

Recent pictures at the ESA site [5] show that the ice bridge has completely washed away. I don't want to post a picture illegally. Can someone who knows the rules better than me please post some updated pictures?--Dwane E Anderson (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)