Talk:Post-glacial rebound

Post-glacial rebound was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: September 30, 2007.

From the article: Salmioja "the ditch of the Sound". This is not good. Try "Straitbrook" or "Strait Trench" instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.132.233 (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how post-glacial rebound can cause low gravity regions? As per this article:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11826-satellites-solve-mystery-of-low-gravity-over-canada.html

Isn't the stuff about North and South England only one of a number of causes? The Thames barrier and sinking of London is often attributed to over-pumping from deep wells and the idea that the South of England has to fall because the North rises looks a bit thin? Also the Ice Age reached the Exe-Tees line half way down England and Great Britain is not an island it is Islands. I have taken the "Good Article" tag off until resolved —Preceding unsigned comment added by BozMo (talk • contribs)

The following is a quote from a report by University College London's Benfield Hazard Research Centre [1]:

As if all this was not enough, as will be shown later in this report, in the south east of England the land is sinking due to tectonic tilt caused by post glacial rebound in the north of Britain, which will accelerate relative sea level rise.

Worldtraveller 18:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article delisting

I have decided to delist this article on the grounds that the GA criteria are not met and the article was not reviewed before status was upgraded.

1. Well written?: No problems here.

2. Factually accurate?: There are only three references at the bottom, and although inline links point to sources, inline references are not used. Specific sections are not referenced, and there are no references at all until the paragraph about Finland in the effects section and the paragraph about Great Britiain. These are the only two paragraphs with references. This needs to be rectified to pass GA.

3. Broad in coverage?: Attempts made to cover a range of topics, however I would say needs more on economic effects and so forth, and the legal issues section needs expansion.

4. Neutral point of view?: No problems here, covers a range of situations around the world.

5. Article stability? No problems here.

6. Images?: Could use some better images, but not bad enough to not meet the criteria.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

I am allowing until 30th September for these problems to be fixed before delisting. Max Naylor 11:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As nothing has been done to correct these problems, I am delisting the article. Max Naylor 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inline referencing

I tried one, but I don't see any reference showing up. Can someone make this work properly? Dan Watts (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no citation for claims sea levels have risen due to climate change

neither specifically due to climate, nor that it has risen.

this is not to dispute this, but i think we need evidence here (which i'm sure is available).

124.171.135.186 (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia's own Current_sea_level_rise page doesn't show any significant change in the rate of sea level rise in the past century - as such, the claim should really be stricken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.241.254 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something that's been fairly flat for the last 8k years suddenly jumps up 20 cm in the past 100 and that's no change? Extending 20 cm/century back over the last 8k years would have pushed the level up by 16 meters. Hcobb (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? got something to back that claim up? Sea level rise looks very constant... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.55.164 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is nonsense

I don't believe in that. The increase of about 2.3 ms/cy can be explaind perfectly by conversation of angular momentum and the observation, that the distance of the moon increases about 4 cm each year. 95.222.228.77 (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that again. Sorry, but guess I was mistaken. The sea water contributes considerable to the Earth's moment of inertia. That means the moment of interia is really measurable reduced by ice mass close to the poles (near the axis of rotation). --95.222.228.77 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like most of it is nonsense. The original idea of crustal loading is down to David Cartwright, and his findings that ocean tides, particularly Mf, are some consistently 12% below astronomical forcing. Cartwright's name is not mentioned. I'm sure the crustal loading from ice certainly happens. NONSENSE found. Oceanic thermal expansion has caused very little of the observed sea level rise. It is nearly all due to extraneous input of freshwater (see Wunsch's 2007 seminal work). Loss of ice at higher altitudes is due far more to the reduction of humidity and the subsequent increase in sublimation. The 0.85C increase since 1880 (see IPCC latest) is not capable of melting the observed volume of ice lost. Sea level rise as measured from satellites (3mm/yr) is wrong. The global array of WLR, which also measure bottom pressure, show the rise to be 1.6mm/yr (see Wunsch 2007, and NASA 2016). Bottom pressures have increased nearly as much as surface pressures, proving nearly all rise is due to added mass. (Thermal expansion does not change bottom pressures.) The reason why the satellites overestimate the rise (they go to a max of 60N/S) is not yet fully understood. The increase in ocean mass at lower lats will be partly responsible. Orbits cannot be reliably recalibrated over the ocean, which is what the satellite is trying to measure..220.240.228.205 (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

The section "Earth's rotation" is quite doubtful from the very beginning, starting from attribution of Earth rotation irregularities to ancient Chinese and Babylonian astronomers. But the theory about rotation axis is the worst. There were several glaciation in Pleistocene, so we should consider effect of which? Or, maybe, of all combined? The article true polar wander does not provide any figures for Earth (such as 1 degree per Myr), any plots or graphs, even unreferenced ones. It even does not give an intelligible definition of the phenomena – if the lithosphere is subject to plate tectonics and rotation axis is subject to precession, then what reference should we use for this wander? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GIA and LOD

Those who say nonsense to GIA effect on LOD only reveal their total ignorance. There are plenty of refences out there--pull your heads out and look them up! Take a refresher course in freshman physics! I would only point out that no million year polar wander can be safely extrapolated from current observation. --AGF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.104.162 (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that "LOD" is the length of a mean solar day? Paul H. (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes separation

In the section on "Vertical crustal motion" this statement

"Lake Superior was formerly part of a much larger lake together with Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, but post-glacial rebound raised land dividing the three lakes about 2100 years ago."

is not borne out by anything in the source given (there is a map of relative land rise curves, but I'm not sure it would give that result, anyway that would be obvious original research/self-made calculation), and actually it was added to the article long before the supposed source (which is thoroughly scientific though, and knowledgeable on other aspects of great Lakes shoreline change). And a check with the series of maps at Great Lakes, one of them showing the state of things around 2000 BC, at least does not bear out that there was a very long stretch in time when the three Western lakes were united. Can somebody check this and look for other sources? Strausszek (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image "A model of present-day surface elevation change due to post-glacial rebound ..." should be replaced

THe image whose caption starts "A model of present-day surface elevation change due to post-glacial rebound..." depicts the EQUIVALENT WATER THICKNESS to the GIA rates. That quantity is used in GRACE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment) data analysis to display the time changes in MASS that causes changes in observed gravity. The more appropriate image to show here is ftp://podaac-ftp.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/tellus/L3/pgr/browse/PGR_Paulson2007_Rate_of_Lithospheric_Uplift_due_to_PGR.png , which shows the actual vertical motion of the lithosphere (up or down, despite the filename) due to GIA. (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that in the midWest - I believe the Needle - has risen about 6 inches since it was built - must be a satellite measurement. The middle of the country is rising and the coast/s are sinking. I suspect that some of the islands we hear about getting flooded by higher temperatures are probably just slowly sinking. The result is the same just the science is a little different. I think some scientists had better get a grant to figure out how far this sinking will go and how to jack up NYC. 159.105.81.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal implications

The "Legal implications" only covers Finland. Does anyone know what the legal implications are for any other countries? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]