Talk:Retreat of glaciers since 1850/Archive 2

message: OK, my attempt. I said (or the peer rev) "If a glacier cannot achieve a point of equilibrium through retreat..." - what isn't made clear here (not sure where to say it) is that as the glacier retreats (uphill; to a colder region) it becomes stabalised, since melt decreases but I don't think that was fully grokked. So...
Glaciers sit on slopes; and air gets colder as you go upwards. So if the net balance at the glacier terminus is negative (net balance = +ppn -melt +movement-of-higher-ice-down) the terminus retreats upwards. Higher up, the air will be colder, so melt will decrease, and to first order all the other terms are the same, so the terminus will stabalise at a new, higher position (and conversely, if the balance is +ve at the terminus, it will grown downhill, melt will increase and it will again stabalise). These are all dynamic balances, in that one year is never quite like the last, and of course there is a seasonal cycle in all of this. That sort of assumes that the changes in imposed temperature are slow enough that the glacier has time to come into equilibrium - it can take ?years?decades? for it to adjust. If the T changes quickly, the glacier can go out of equilibrium, and then it retreats/advances "in seach of" the new equilibrium.
Hans Oerlemans lecture notes (http://www.phys.uu.nl/~oerlemns/Oerlemans-simple%20glacier%20models.pdf) are quite helpful. William M. Connolley 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a lot of this depends on the altitude gain...my understanding is that for every 1,000 feet above the altitude of 2,000, the temperature on an average is 1 to 3 degrees F colder than at the 2,000 foot margin. So if we are talking about valley glaciers with limited slope, this may not apply.--MONGO 20:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh no, its the imperialists! I can't do those units. Very roughly, 100m is 1 oC (generally somewhat less than 1 oC). If the glacier has a small slope, then it will have to retreat a long way (horizontally) to recover a small vertical change, and thus be very sensitive to T changes (Hans's notes mention this explcitly). William M. Connolley 21:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha:)...no, your comment is correct I believe as an altitude increase may lead to stabilization (equilibrium), but aside from a few examples this isn't showing up in the data. Take the New Guinea info for instance and Kilimanjaro...the glaciers there have retreated to a status that is nearing being disqualified as being in the realm of a glacier...and are either simply disappearing or are now simply snowfields. Is that about what you mean?--MONGO 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equilibrium again 

message: The article says:
: In historic times, glaciers grew during the Little Ice Age, a cool period from about 1650 to 1850. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed. Glacial retreat declined and reversed, in many cases, from 1950 to 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. However since 1980, glacial retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous,
This is definitely what many people would think. But if you look at the recent Oerlemans Science papar (discussed at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129; see last fig) the glacier derived temperature is close to constant from 1600 to 1850; which implies that the glacier obs used for that study don't show growth (when averaged).  The dip after 1940, and strong retreat after, fits the fig though. William M. Connolley 20:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You miss my point. I'm not talking about the timing, but about the "glacial advance". If they were, why doesn't it show up in the Oerlemans work? William M. Connolley 20:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advance and retreat 

message: I'm still a little concerned about the tipping point arrow in the glacier mass balance chart.  The chart is great, but the meaning of that pointer is not discussed in the article (and I don't really understand the explanation on the talk page, since there seems to be a generally negative inflection to the curve).
I wonder if editors are strongly attached to that pointer; I'm inclined to think it would be better without that side issue.  Or maybe an explanation of why the arrow points exactly there would show why it's important to include.  I could touch up the JPG file to erase that arrow, but better might be if Peltoms could export the original format without it.  I presume the original vector image would make it easier to erase an element like that.  
Oh... also on those lines, both of the graphs are really in the wrong format.  JPG is only the right thing for continuous tone images like photos.  Either PNG, or even SVG, would be better for a chart/graph.  It looks like very low JPG compression was used, but I can still see some slight compression artifacts. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not keen on "tipping point": its an over-used and under-explained concept in general. I'd rather it wasn't there, unless justified (by, say, the WGMS reports). In certain situations, for an individual glacier, there could perhaps be a point at which (perhaps ice-albedo feedback) knocks it over some threshold. But in general, since glaciers have a strong negative feedback (retreat uphill) available, there is no tipping point. At least as far as I'm aware. If it is to stay, it needs a good justification. William M. Connolley 21:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I converted the image to PNG and manually whited-out the "tipping-point" thing.  However, if Peltoms can provide me with the vector original image, I can do a better job with this.  Once I zoomed in a bunch to paint the pixels, I could definitely see a lot of compression artifacts from the JPG version. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not seeing this uphill negative aspect reflected in the data as compared to overall genral retreat. While it has been observed and reported, it is not apparently universal and may be more commonplace in the most southern and northern latitudes, leaving mid latitude glaciers without a point at which they can reestablish equilibrium. I am also finding the explanation of the tipping point ambiguous.--MONGO 22:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tipping point again (and graphic formats) 

message: I find this second paragraph from the section "Dynamics" confusing:
A glacier tends to reestablish equilibrium through retreat, losing the highest ablating low elevation terminus areas. Since higher elevations are cooler than lower ones, the disappearance of the lowest portion of the glacier reduces overall ablation, thereby reestablishing equilibrium if the glacier is not in disequilbrium. If a glacier cannot retreat to a point where accumulation and ablation are balanced, it is in disequilibrium with the climate system. Such a glacier will melt away with a continuation of this climate.  
"Highest ablating low elevation terminus zone"...needs a conversion into something that can be more easily understood by those unfamiliar with this evidence. The second sentence is confusing me as well and I think it needs to be clarified or at least simplified. We also need to attribute the glacier mass graph and disclose where that came from and what the data is based on. Just a few thoughts.--MONGO 01:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it reads a lot easier now.--MONGO 18:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: I stubbed Holocene glacial retreat pursuant to the discussion above. I added enough low quality verbage that it is unlikely to be deleted. I don't know much about the topic, except that plenty of information is available and that it was responsible for forming or modifying much of the modern landscale in northern North America and Europe. Should it be linked to this article right away. Or would it be better to wait for meaningful content? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocene glacial retreat 

message: Please add items below...
*MONGO thinks that we might be asked to shorten the article (see my talk page). I don't mind moving the Data sources section into a new article (Glacier metrology?) if people think that would improve this one. Should we do it now?  Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for giving this a careful read. What should we do about de Freitas? I'm assuming that you don't think his views are notable (WP:N) enough to warrant comment, e.g., "It's an environmental condition that attracts attention, but to link it to global warming is such a leap that is shows what I would consider a naive or simple understanding of events."  It may give this view undeserved prominence to quote Scientific American or another other reference indicating that de Freitas' views have little support in the scientific community and that he was an editor of Climate Research a minor journal that subsequently disavowed his editorial work (publishing a flawed paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas) amid three resignations from its editorial board?  Is it a good idea to confront this issue directly or to dismiss it implicitly by not talking about it? What does WP:NPOV require in this case? Google finds 696 instances of "de Freitas" "global warming".  I looked at Global warming controversy; it does not discuss de Freitas or Soon and Baliunas. I don't think we should duplicate any part of the global warming controversy article. But, I wonder if it suffices to mention that there are those who deny that recent warming is largely human-caused and link to global warming controversy. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree...I have looked really hard for reliable witness to demonstrate the opposite of the bulk of our findings and there simply isn't any that is worth mentioning. I wish there was to be quite honest, as these changes are rather alarming to say the least. We need to find more in regrads to Asia...I have looked with little success...do we have a reference for some of the information in the Asia section? I found only one substantive link that was web based...if there is written evidence, it would be nice to be able to cite it and put the reference in the cited references at bottom. I'll look more tonight for information on Asia.--MONGO 14:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punchlist 

message: I would like to propose the following reordering of the material in the article.
#Move Greenland to the end of the Arctic Ocean section and rename that section Arctic
#Put Antarctica after Arctic
This would place the introductory remarks of the Greenland section, a description of the vast polar and subpolar ice sheets, near the Antarctica section to which they also pertain.  Currently, Greenland is between the mostly temperate mountain and valley glaciers of Europe and North America and the tropical and subtropical mountain glaciers of Africa, Asia and Oceania. It seems to me that it is better grouped with the Arctic islands and Antarctica at the end of the article. While Greenland does extend as far south as 60 degrees N, it is mostly above the Arctic Circle, so it is fair to call it Arctic, or so I would think. I put Antarctica at the very end so that there is a rough progression in the article from small mountain glaciers to enormous continent-scale ice sheets.Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sounds good.--MONGO 07:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Done, relocated cited references as well.--MONGO 08:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work on the summary I added a bit of detail, and took out one sentence so the length remains unchanged.  The Alaska section looks just a bit long, so I will look to shorten thatPeltoms 13:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization of article

message: I nominated the article for Featured Status...links to watch:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glacier retreat and 
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates--MONGO 08:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated 

message: We need to better illustrate the graphs...as asked in the nomination process:what do the red and black dots represent and where was the information that the graphs demostrate come from. I'll try and research more on it tonight. I thnk we need to trim the Alaska section significantly...I hate to lose data, but I'm for the creation of a daughter article that just discusses Alaska and a summary of the information here, with a few examples. The rest of the sections seem fine, and I'll continue to try and locate more on Asia.--MONGO 03:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a slightly touched up version of the alpine retreat from data Peltoms provided me (I now have the glacier retreat data too... and will try to create a tweaked version of that chart).  But I cannot provide citation information for the data itself.  Hopefully Peltoms will add the complete citation to the charts.  The red and black dots look fairly obvious to me, but if I can get the graph created afresh, I'll add more explicit caption as to the meaning (years, a range of data or confidence interval for the single-year data, a single average for cummulative). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm afraid I probably won't do so.  I got a large chunk of raw data from Peltoms, but exactly how the charts are derived from the data is not entirely obvious to me once I looked at the spreadsheet.  So I think I'm just going to leave the mass balance chart as-is.  Or maybe just add a slight extra caption in a bitmap editor, rather than try to re-export from the source data.  However, we definitely want to clarify the citation/source of the data. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we'll have to I'm afraid...Peltoms...can you summarize it in a sentence? here and then we can try and disseminate it into the text of the image?--MONGO 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The reference is accurate and the image caption is concise.  I do not think anything needs to be added to the mass balance graph.  Note the lack of detail explaining the year notations on photographs for comparison.Peltoms 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  The mass balance chart is now well annotated, with a good citation.  Can we provide similar information for the Alpine one? Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the article reads so much better after all of the edits.  I still do not see how the mass balance methods section helps the article overall.  Do any of you see it as important.  Peltoms 16:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I started the mass balance methods section because I thought it was an exception to much of the rest of research related to global warming, e.g., oxygen isotope ratios, climate models, etc., in that the techniques are straightforward and easily grasped, for the most part, by the nontechnical reader. I was especially intrigued that useful data can be obtained by emplacing poles in ice or by pushing probes in snow. Also, I'm hoping to get some pictures this summer of annual layers on crevasse walls. Often, it is hard to illustrate scientific data acquisition, and again, I thought this was an exceptional example. That said, I think it is important to focus on Peltoms point of whether this section helps the article overall. I would not object if others prefer moving it into a subarticle. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Are we talking about the entire dynamics section...leaving just a couple of sentences to summarize and then linking to a subarticle?--MONGO 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphs 

message: I'm kinda not so happy of the notion of using php.cite style.  Writing the references inline on occurence indeed groups them where needed, but disrupts the appearance of paragraphs in the edit window.  On the other hand, maintaining the order or references and notes seems like a real PITA.
I wonder what editors would think of using Harvard style referencing.  We could list all the citations in a sensible alphabetic order by author (I know some web references are hard to say who's author; but I think we can find something), and not worry about the correspondence order between notes and references.  For a simple sandbox example, if you haven't used this, see: User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Ref practice.   If the idea flies with other editors, I'll do the work of transforming these... it's pretty straightforward compared to the much greater effort of putting everything into the reference templates (which we would still keep). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harvard is my personal pref William M. Connolley 20:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References again 

message: Reflecting what seems to be general consensus, I spun off a child/sibling article Glacier dynamics.  I believe I left in about as much as we need for this article, but please feel free to improve.  Also, if you think the child needs better context or an altered lead, I appreciate your help.  I think it mostly works though.
Also notice that I implemented that Harvard referencing in the child, which I think looks nice. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved this to Glacier mass balance following discussion on the child page. Hope thats OK, can be undone if not. William M. Connolley 22:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child article 

message: Reposting this from my usertalk and I can both answer them here (as can anyone else) and in my usertalk.
For its FAC, I am starting a fact/reference check on Glacier retreat. As the proponent, may I posted questions here on your talk page? I'll assume you said 'yes' and begin (you can move this conversion to the FAC page or other talk page if you like):
*First, I am glad you (or someone) created a section on Glacier mass balance, it was slow going with that data sources section. Unfortunately, this alteration messed up the references. If you don't have a problem with it I will re-format them to the new m:Cite/Cite.php system so they will order themselves.
*In "Alps" the 1995-2000 edition of something (a report?) is referred to and its results given but I cannot find the reference. Is it on the WGMS website?  --maclean25 02:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is to be credited with creating the Glacier mass balance article...otherwise I did little editing in the mass balance section in this article, maybe a little copyediting but that is all. As far as using m:Cite/Cite.php for the references...that is fine with me, but at least two editors above have indicated they may prefer Harvard style referencing instead. I'll look at the "Alps" comment and citation.--MONGO 03:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... having successfully used the Harvard refs in the Glacier mass balance article, I now feel fairly strongly that Harvard is more maintainable than m:Cite/Cite.php for the style of bibliographic references we use.  If we used actual comments in footnotes I might feel otherwise, but for simple citations, inline cite.php can look awkward when editing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a BOT someone runs that can be used to do this conversion, at least in the section at the end of the article under cited references? --MONGO 03:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... my kingdom for a bot! That was much more work than I had hoped.  But I don't think a bot could have done it, since the old ref names are mostly not the same as the author name that I wanted to use in the link; it took some judgement cite-by-cite.  Still, I think this is quite pretty. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work there Lulu...I must admit, it was going to be several days before I had the energy to devote to the conversion and I appreciate all your hard work!--MONGO 07:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions posted to my talk page 

message: I have tried to use academic-style last names for footnote/endnote links, rather than simply mneumonic values.  So I recently changed "MSPelto" to "Pelto5".  Normally, in academic notes, you'd indicate year for multiple sources from same author: "Jones 1987", "Jones 1995a", "Jones 1995b".  Unfortunately, however, for many of the web sources the year is unclear to me.  Rather than append a letter for disambiguation, I used a number.  "Jonesa" might read like an actual name (and "Jones a" looks odd to me); or more concretely, "Peltoa" and "Peltob" look plausible as names, so I made them "Pelto1", "Pelto2", etc. In a number of cases, the "author" of a citation is an organization, in those cases I use the capitalized acronym of the organization (whether or not it normally goes by an acronym): e.g. "USGS". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, it's still a little Greek to me, so I'll try and make sure I read the Harvard style footnoting for future referencing.--MONGO 19:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote names 

message: Currently the first sentence of the article reads: "Glacier retreat is one of the most important topics in the field of glaciology. Worldwide there has been..."
However, Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#The first sentence tells us to make the opening sentence "give a concise, conceptually sound definition that puts the article in context."
To improve on the current opening, how does this sound: "Glacier retreat is the process by which glaciers lose volume or surface area due to a lower level of accumulation than ablation of precipitation. It is one of the most important topics in the field of glaciology which has recorded a general, worldwide, reduction in size of glaciers. This has been especially pronounced in Himalayas, Alps..."
What are your thoughts?  --maclean25 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the first couple of lines now and let me know what you think.--MONGO 08:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The first sentence

message: You guys can probably find a good way to use this.  
Dragons flight 10:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa...now that's is nice...I'll see if I can fit it somewhere on the newer version of the article. How'd you do that...what software are you using?--MONGO 11:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Matlab and Adobe Illustrator.  Dragons flight 20:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice map, but where's Antartica?  It's kinda relevant... – Doug Bell talk•contrib 12:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted on the image description page, I limited it to sites that had been measured at least 5 times since 1970.  According to Dyurgerov and Meier (2005), none of the glaciers on the margin of Anarctica have been measured more than 4 times since 1970.  Dragons flight 20:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a beautiful map.  It does combine the 1970's a period of positive mass balance and the period since of negative balances.  Thus, it does not show the mass balance loss that has driven the retreat as well, but we already have a graph that does that.  So we just need to point that out wherever it goes. Greenland and Antarctica are not present and that is ok because we do not know the mass balance of either over this time period.  Peltoms 12:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A map 

message: I added several comments to the FAC page.  Maybe I should have added them here, but I got to the article from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 12:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doug good comments.  I looked at the FAC page and other than one person the comments are generally good and we have addressed most of these. This article is not about the impact of glacier retreat.  The ozone hole has nothing to do with glacier retreat.  The impact of the retreat on ocean species is not something that is realistic to have identified nor is the retreat of the ice sheets significant enough at this time to have caused a discernible change. In my opinion we should not expand on the impacts as they differ from watershed to watershed. Peltoms 12:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about the impact of glacier retreat Well, I was wondering about those things I mentioned because of the impacts that are discussed in the article.  The section just came across as maybe not entirely scientific. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 13:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A number of errors are creeping in as we try to further summarize material.  From the advancing glacier statement to the surging glaciers being the ones advancing in Alaska.  Keep up the good work of these edits.  I will go through the whole article to make sure it is correct this weekend, and let you worry about it sounding good.Peltoms 13:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just please try not to lose the clean-up I did to this article in the new version.  Just to be clear, by "I ask that any alterations be made to this article" you are talking about Glacier retreat, correct? – Doug Bell talk•contrib 13:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can edit anywhere you like, but prefer it here in the Glacier retreat article space...if someone can fit and correctly label the map we have been offered into this article, that will guide me on where to place it in the version I am working on. If anyone doesn't like my version, I can scrap it. I have yet to address all the concerns brought up by yourself of Mclean on this talk page above, for as I said, I am mainly attempting a reorganization after at least 4 editors said they didn't like the current structure. Those are excellent points you brought up at the FAC page.--MONGO 13:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No problems...I know when I moved the article to my userspace and I can update it all there from the diffs...just open two browsers.--MONGO 13:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several comments (maybe should have added them here) 

message: I think the superscript references are a great improvement!  These are better than numbers, and now do not interfer with the text as they are easier to read past.  In fact, I like it so much I just created a new template  to support this style so that every reference doesn't require . – Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it hard to read pass the plain text references too. I think the superscript solution is clever and a big improvement.  Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Gee, that is why my version was such a mess as I hadn't removed the superscript notations....is the new harv cite now lsited as an alternative for those who may also wish to use this new template in other articles? If so, where?--MONGO 09:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you looked at the template talk page, you could have answered that question for yourself.  :-)  See Template talk:Ref and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks..saw it after I made my commment and was too lazy to update myself.--MONGO 10:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <sup>superscript</sup> references 

message: I have completely reorganized the page to eliminate the original outline I created when this thing got started. As can be observed, I broke glaciated areas down into Tropical, Mid latitude (with eastern and western hemisphere subsections for evenness) and Polar main sections rather than breaking it into continent and mountain chains. I added brief intros into each section that should be adequate. I have also attempted to address each major point brought up by several editors in the FAC process and on the discussion page of this article. My changes are not, of course written in stone, but I personally think it looks better this way. Some tweaking and word play is still needed, a through copyedit to examine missing commas and spelling errors would be good yet and, well, this article is still under construction. We still need to identify the surging glaciers in Patagonia as that was brought up and I haven't addressed it yet. It may be easiest to open two browers and compare the edit before I started this as shown here in this imbedded link with the version I now have completed with this edit. I also added a passing comment about sea level rise (which I think belongs elsewhere, but other commentors felt differently) and an appropriate citation.--MONGO 10:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I like the organization by lattitude much better than the organization by continent. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I added fairly extensive comments on the new organization and content to the FAC page.  I added them there since some of the issues are the same as the previous comment I left on that page. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that...left you a message on your talk page. I for one am not infavor of splitting it into a northern and southern hemisphere as this will create a huge inbalance of the sections...there simply aren't many mid latitude glaciers in the southern hemisphere. I addressed a number of issues that you had left previously but since I don't agree with all the issues you have, I am not going to address all of them.--MONGO 01:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the issues that have been brought up by the commentators have now been addressed. I just looked over some of Doug Bell's advice and made some minor adjustments. The FAC process is supposed to be a helpful process that is engineered to help all the editors involved to "fix" the areas of weakness. From my standpoint, some FA items are just opinions, and not based on any set standard, but almost all of them have been excellent. The level of correction needed to address individualized concerns is also a matter of POV. I use them as a guide and do not necessarily do everything that is requested. As what happened with a previous article I worked on to get it to FA, the commentators actually made substantive edits that assisted me, and thankfully, this has happened here. I find that the best thing to do is if see something broke, then fix it...especially if all we are talking about are very minor alterations to sentence structure. The article is too unstable at present to be a FA...and stability is crucial for FA status. Let's give it a couple of weeks as I still have a few things to do of a minor note.--MONGO 03:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's very kind and I thank you. Lulu, Wsiegmund, yourself have added most of the scientific data which made the article. Excellent comments by editors mclean25, Doug Bell, WorldTraveller, Lupo and a few others also demonstrate the best of Wikipedia by their very through analysis of the weak points of the article. I believe that the majority of their comments have now been addressed. Doug Bell even created a new template for the citations that automagically make the citations superscript small within the article text, eliminating the need to tediously go to every citation and type ...that was a big help and makes it easier to edit this article. Bell also asked we explain Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) and this may need to be made in a sub article, but a passing explanation needs to be addressed here. We have also been asked to briefly mention in more detail a few surging glaciers and the mechanisms behind that...and mention the few advancing glaciers such as in Patagonia (Perito Merino) I believe as one example. As spin offs from this, Glacier mass balance looks good and we could also work a lot more on Holocene glacial retreat as that was asked to be explained. I think a bit more tweaking to give the article better readablity between some areas that have a lot of facts and figures is needed, and slowly I think this is happening. In a couple of weeks, once we have all reached an agreement that the article is the best we can do, then I'll invite the previous commentators to look it over again, and we will renominate the article. I am however, in complete agreement with you...I would rather have it be a very good article with excellent references and facts and figures, than have it be a featured article in which we would lose any of this information. If anything, this longish article could even be expanded...no mention of Sierra Nevada glaciers is even made and that is an oversight...see this reference . No mention of the glaciers in east Asia is found such as in Kamchatka. Aside from a few minor improvements and some grammar issues in a few points, I think we are pretty close.--MONGO 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I concur with MONGO in thanking the wonderful work of Peltoms, Wseigmund, mcclean25, Doug Bell, WorldTraveller, Lupo (and also William M. Connolley; and anyone both of us may have forgotten), he gives me too much credit.  I contributed to some wording and organization (and to the biggish reference project), but really can't claim any credit for the core scientific data provided by the experts.  I tend to agree with MONGO that providing a depth of information is more important than whether it meets FA status per se; in either case we benefit from the FA nomination comments, and readability continues to improve. 23:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Give me and others a couple of days to make some tweaks and I'll ask al the commentators again how they feel now that a lot of their comments have been addressed.--MONGO 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I just created a stub article that can be expanded Glacial Lake Outburst Flood...it has a few links to get us started.--MONGO 21:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it hard to distinguish between GLOF and a Jokulhlaup.  I did work on that page.  We should definetly stay away from surging glacier mechanism discussion.  It is neither simple, nor consistent nor completely identified in various cases.  We have avoided using surging glaciers in our discussion of glaciers, since the dynamics would confuse the issue. Peltoms 17:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I kept surging glacier discussion out, may have made it look that way with the discussion about perito merino glacier...do you think we should also not detail a GLOF as much as I did or maybe move the discussion elsewhere? I'll be glad to do either if you think it distracts from the article.--MONGO 21:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: I've noticed that the FAC nomination has grown rather complex; and since it was made, we've done quite a bit of reorganization (as well as smaller fixes)... some, but not all, in response to the FAC comments.  I wonder if there's any appropriate way to "re-nominate" the article.  Or maybe just put all the older FAC comments into an archive or subsection.  I'm just thinking that it's a bit hard to tell now which issues have been addressed, which deliberately not addressed, which still problems, etc.  I can sort of make my own judgements about those, but someone stumbling along the FAC, who hasn't seen the article history, will probably be bewildered. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the issues that have been brought up by the commentators have now been addressed. I just looked over some of Doug Bell's advice and made some minor adjustments. The FAC process is supposed to be a helpful process that is engineered to help all the editors involved to "fix" the areas of weakness. From my standpoint, some FA items are just opinions, and not based on any set standard, but almost all of them have been excellent. The level of correction needed to address individualized concerns is also a matter of POV. I use them as a guide and do not necessarily do everything that is requested. As what happened with a previous article I worked on to get it to FA, the commentators actually made substantive edits that assisted me, and thankfully, this has happened here. I find that the best thing to do is if see something broke, then fix it...especially if all we are talking about are very minor alterations to sentence structure. The article is too unstable at present to be a FA...and stability is crucial for FA status. Let's give it a couple of weeks as I still have a few things to do of a minor note.--MONGO 03:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's very kind and I thank you. Lulu, Wsiegmund, yourself have added most of the scientific data which made the article. Excellent comments by editors mclean25, Doug Bell, WorldTraveller, Lupo and a few others also demonstrate the best of Wikipedia by their very through analysis of the weak points of the article. I believe that the majority of their comments have now been addressed. Doug Bell even created a new template for the citations that automagically make the citations superscript small within the article text, eliminating the need to tediously go to every citation and type ...that was a big help and makes it easier to edit this article. Bell also asked we explain Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) and this may need to be made in a sub article, but a passing explanation needs to be addressed here. We have also been asked to briefly mention in more detail a few surging glaciers and the mechanisms behind that...and mention the few advancing glaciers such as in Patagonia (Perito Merino) I believe as one example. As spin offs from this, Glacier mass balance looks good and we could also work a lot more on Holocene glacial retreat as that was asked to be explained. I think a bit more tweaking to give the article better readablity between some areas that have a lot of facts and figures is needed, and slowly I think this is happening. In a couple of weeks, once we have all reached an agreement that the article is the best we can do, then I'll invite the previous commentators to look it over again, and we will renominate the article. I am however, in complete agreement with you...I would rather have it be a very good article with excellent references and facts and figures, than have it be a featured article in which we would lose any of this information. If anything, this longish article could even be expanded...no mention of Sierra Nevada glaciers is even made and that is an oversight...see this reference . No mention of the glaciers in east Asia is found such as in Kamchatka. Aside from a few minor improvements and some grammar issues in a few points, I think we are pretty close.--MONGO 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I concur with MONGO in thanking the wonderful work of Peltoms, Wseigmund, mcclean25, Doug Bell, WorldTraveller, Lupo (and also William M. Connolley; and anyone both of us may have forgotten), he gives me too much credit.  I contributed to some wording and organization (and to the biggish reference project), but really can't claim any credit for the core scientific data provided by the experts.  I tend to agree with MONGO that providing a depth of information is more important than whether it meets FA status per se; in either case we benefit from the FA nomination comments, and readability continues to improve. 23:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Give me and others a couple of days to make some tweaks and I'll ask al the commentators again how they feel now that a lot of their comments have been addressed.--MONGO 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I just created a stub article that can be expanded Glacial Lake Outburst Flood...it has a few links to get us started.--MONGO 21:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it hard to distinguish between GLOF and a Jokulhlaup.  I did work on that page.  We should definetly stay away from surging glacier mechanism discussion.  It is neither simple, nor consistent nor completely identified in various cases.  We have avoided using surging glaciers in our discussion of glaciers, since the dynamics would confuse the issue. Peltoms 17:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I kept surging glacier discussion out, may have made it look that way with the discussion about perito merino glacier...do you think we should also not detail a GLOF as much as I did or maybe move the discussion elsewhere? I'll be glad to do either if you think it distracts from the article.--MONGO 21:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC nomination 

message: Why doens't this article have a critiscms? or alternative viewpoints section like most other articles do?--205.188.116.66 23:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific?  This article does not purport to show a viewpoint, but rather simply discuss current research, so it would be helpful if you could provide an example of what you mean. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Criticism cruft. This article is about data. There is no alternative viewpoint. It mentions both retreat of glaciers and (the relatively fewer cases) where they are advancing. I don't understand what the alternative viewpoint would be. That they aren't retreating? Let's find the viewpoint before including it rather than assuming everything has to be rebutted. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: why?

message: Hopefully this is the right place for these comments:
* The term "staking terminus location" needs to be defined.
*:Working on these, slow but sure and will add to article text and will leave cites here to refer back to later when making corrections to article. Staking is used to measure movement and loss of thickness apparently.--MONGO 03:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more comments 

message: I propose a brief summary of this and a new subarticle and hope Peltoms will chime in with his thoughts and of course corrections. I have provided one link for the information but hopefully we can find more...
Photography is one of the easiest methods to visually demonstrate the retreat of glaciers. With the earliest images of glaciers dating from the mid 19th-century, visual evidence of glacial changes have been documented on certain glaciers over a long period of time. Photographs of glaciers in the Alps and North American dating before 1890 and compared to photographs taken 100 years later, repeatedly demonstrate the retreat of glaciers. More recent photographs from the mid 20th-century from such locations as the Himalayas and compared to photographs taken since 2000, provide a reliable reference on the issue of glacier retreat. Modern photographic techniques such as repeat photography can be done from the ground, from aircraft and from space. 
The earlier methods of simply measuring the length and width of a glacier, are now complemented by advances in techniques and technology. *This ablation section is mass balance not terminus change that is why it was removed.Peltoms 13:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with that...this article is long enough anyway. A subarticle discussing the methodology used to measure glacier retreat might not be a bad idea also. What this article still needs is a bit more prose in between all the facts and figures, but I'm taking abreak from this article for about a week until I come up with some new ideas.--MONGO 06:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition 

message: I saw this article was up at FAC. I supported it, but said that I had one concern: this is not an article about glacial retreat. It is an article about "glacial retreat over the last 150 years". Glacial retreat is different; it is conceptual, and there have been many examples of glacial retreat (and indeed glacial advance) throughout geological time, although obviously the ones in the holocene are the best known. A new article, detailing the mechanisms, processes and some examples of glacial retreat ought to be created at Glacier retreat (or as a redirect to Glacial retreat); this article should be moved to (something like) "Post-Industrial Revolution glacier rereat". What do others think? Batmanand | Talk 12:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and locate the thread that discusses the title. Peltoms is the "resident" glaciologist that worked on this article a lot. He defined "Glacial retreat" as the end of the ice ages...in other words, essentially the period also know as the Holocene glacial retreat. This article discusses Glaciers...as in more isolated smaller masses of glaciers that are not even necessarily remnants of the last ice ages, as many of the glaciers now retreating actually developed during the Little Ice Age. It doesn't actually fit into a Post-Industrial period as that is still ongoing and the industrial age only really just started at about the same time as the end of the little ice age...in other words, (I am not sure on this) there isn't much dtat to support evidence that the coal buring that became big in the early to mid 18th century actually hastened the retreat of glaciers...Glacier retreat is the term used by glaciologists for the period since 1850, generally. I orginally had the article titled as Glacial recession...but I agreed to change it as the other major contributors correctly commented that this is incorrect since we do not discuss the period that that tile would need to incorpoarte in text...the holocene period from 12 thousand until maybe 3 thousand years ago. We did spinoff Glacier mass balance Glacial Lake Outburst Flood and Holocene glacial retreat, all created as byproducts of this effort, with the latter in a riugh state but correctly titled to discuss other periods. See also small stub Pinedale glaciation. I appreciate your imput and let me know if I can clarify this any more for you.--MONGO 13:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That previous thread about the title is here in case you'd like a read of the discussion then.--MONGO 13:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern was that this article is time-set in that it talks solely about post-1850 glacial retreat, not about glacial retreat as a concept. I know that "Post Industrial Revolution Glacial Retreat" is not ideal; how about "Post-1850 glacial retreat" or something like that? It is the time-specific nature of the article that worries me, not whether it is called "Glacial retreat" or "Glacier retreat" or whatever, which was the subject of the poll in the archive that you linked me to (thanks for that btw). Batmanand | Talk 13:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not personally against an article title change. Again...we don't discuss Glacial as this is a different issue, we discuss the retreat of Glaciers. Glacial is a process...I recognize you don't have all the time in the world for this, but you should check out the link I provided above and read from there through a few other threads after that which explain why the title is what it is. I can also ask that we both see if Peltoms or a few of the other contributors chime in...again, a title change is not out of the question, but there would be numerous double redirects caused by this and I don't think the titles of things such as Post 1850 glacial retreat will be an oft googled query for information that this article provides...I'm not tryng to be obtuse, just trying to explain that Glacial means a lot of things whereby Glaciers is about just that...glaciers. I hope Peltoms can clarify this and I'll email him to let him know we are discussing this issue.--MONGO 13:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine. The input of relevant editors would be more than welcome. Just to clarify: I am sure there are very good reasons for calling it "Glacier retreat" as opposed to "Glacial retreat". I am just asking if anyone minds moving the article to a name that better reflects how time-specific this article is right now. Batmanand | Talk 14:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about making "Glacier retreat" a disambiguation page that links to "Glacier retreat since 1850", and also to "Holocene glacier retreat", "Glacier mass balance" and maybe a few other related articles? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My edit a few days ago had similar concerns in mind.  The Little Ice Age was cool relative to present, but was *little* and there have been much colder periods, for example when the Laurentide ice sheet covered major portions of North America.  It also would be helpful to have a separate article on glacial recession, as opposed to glacier advance or glacial advance, that discusses the processes and mechanisms of glacier retreat. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another distinction that can be made is between glacier retreat and ice sheet retreat (e.g. retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet).-Aude (talk | contribs) 20:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Doug Bell is quite correct here.  The capitalization is definitely wrong.  Not sure about the lead article, but I think it probably sounds better as Doug suggests, without the "The". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Omitting the lead article is point number 1.9 in the naming convention and is discussed in detail at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of the article 

message: I just added  to the first paragraph in Glacier_retreat#Western_hemisphere, where it states "Even the surging glaciers are retreating."  I flagged this not so much that a citation is needed (though would be nice), but I'm not sure what you mean or imply here with that statement.  I just found a recently created article on glacier surging which needs expansion.  It's important to note that glacier surging is a process, largely independent of climatic influences, and that it is cyclical.  Glaciers that exhibit surging behavior will go through a surging phase, will then experience a quiescent phase where they retreat substantially (the surge puts them out of equilibrium/balance) to return towards equilibrium.  For surging glaciers in Alaska (Bering Glacier, for example  has experienced six surges in the past century), they go through the cycle on a fairly rapid timescale (geologically speaking).  For surging glaciers in Svalbard and the Canadian Arctic islands, the cycle is much more drawn out over hundreds of years (due to the much lower amounts of precipitation).  Thus, some glaciers in these regions may be undergoing major retreat currently, but the cause could be much more nuanced and be due to a combination of factors (mostly surging, but also climate). Thus, where it says "Even the surging glaciers are retreating.", it makes no sense to me.  Surging (surge-type) glaciers do retreat (for reasons totally independent of climatic factors), in between the surge events. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was a bit apprehensive to work on this as Peltoms had mentioned that we shouldn't go into a lot of detail about the surging aspects of glaciers. I added a brief couple of sentences in the alaska section of the article if you care to have a look and let me know what you think.--MONGO 10:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Glacier surging

message: An editor recently added them.  Contrary to his/her edit comment, I think the references look worse with the bullets.  Maybe I just like the look of traditional academic articles, which wouldn't use that typography.  But they feel like a gratuitous element to me... especially since the reference name is itself bolded and superscripted, given a good visual guide to where each one starts.  Then again, I generally think too many WP articles use bullets too often.  On the other hand, this is certainly not something to edit war over.  Any other opinions? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I am indifferent...either looks fine, although by bulleting the cited references it maintains congruity with the general references and the additional reading section...but those two sections probably should have bullets since they are listed in a different style(?).--MONGO 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't read MONGO's comment before looking at the bullets, but I exactly concur with his comment—either style looks OK, but the congruity wins the nod for keeping the bullets. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullets in refs 

message: The article is really tight now, much harder to find nits in it now.  ;-)  However, I did find a few, and made a few small copy edit corrections in the process (these are up to the "Polar regions" section, I'll review the rest later today):
* In the intro it states "The recent substantial retreat and acceleration since 1995 of a number of key outlet glaciers...".  I know I mentioned this before, but I still don't find it to be clear what 'acceleration' is refering to.  It seems to mean the acceleration of the flow of the glacier, but it could also mean the acceleration of the rate of retreat.  I would attempt to reword it, except that I'm still not clear on which it is.
* In the "Glacier mass balance impact on terminus behavior" section it states "...it is in disequilibrium with the climate and will melt away without a colder climate."  I suppose I could have been bold, because I believe that the correct statement is: "...it is in disequilibrium with the climate and will melt away without a colder climate or an increase in accumulation."  However, that wording didn't sound terrific.  Perhaps better is "...or an increase in snowfall." or "...or an increase in frozen precipitation."  For now I left it alone and just commented here.
* In the "Western hemisphere" section it has the sentence: "The advance of Taku Glacier averaged a retreat rate of 17 m (55 ft) per year between 1988 and 2005."  I'm pretty sure this should instead say "The advance of Taku Glacier averaged 17 m (55 ft) per year between 1988 and 2005."  However, this seemed to be such an obvious misstatement given all the review this article has had that I had to wonder if I'm just misinterpreting it.
—Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I adjusted the three points you made here...I am also looking at this recent work which discusses the increase in interior precipitation in the inland sections of Greenland and the acceleration of outflow glaciers...not sure where I am going to put that in the article, though.--MONGO 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: For a school project I once had on the retreat of glaciers in Africa, I uploaded two images of Kilimanjaro; one from 1993, and one from 2000. They show the rapid retreat of the glaciers, and I think this article would benefit from them. Jon Harald Søby 07:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are images of snow cover on Kilimanjaro.  The glaciers, which occur only at summit, are not appreciably resolved in either image.  Dragons flight 11:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw these images and I think I uploaded them to commons. I had them on the page mistakenly and by accident also thinking that they demostrated glacier retreat, when in fact the show the changes in snow cover from one year to the next. But even so, the images are both from the month of February and so show a dramatic change over 7 years, or at least they compare one year that had a lot of snow with one that didn't.--MONGO 12:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't know they were already uploaded so I'll have to get to commons and ask that mine that I uploaded be deleted.--MONGO 12:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice pictures but I agree with Dragonsflight they showing nothing other than a change in snowcover albeit large and partly due to glacier retreat between two February'sPeltoms 12:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have images you would like to allow Wikipedia to use and don't know how to upload them, contact me on my usertalk . Any images of glacier changes in Kilimanjaro would be most welcome.--MONGO 13:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kilimanjaro

message: Hi everyone, first off let me congratulate you for the excellent article, and all of the hard work that is obvious in reading it.  For a climate change neophyte, this was very informative stuff.
However I can't help but think that a key perspective that is missing here is this: how does the current period of retreat (1850 - present) fit into the overall climate history of the planet?  Other than a passing mention of the Little Ice Age (1550 - 1850), there is no discussion of what I'm guessing is a long history of dramatic glacial change, with periods of both advance and retreat.
I'd like to know more about that history.  How much do we know about the overall glacial cycle?  What are the primary reasons for changes from advance to retreat, and vice versa?  Have there been any significant periods of equilibrium, and what caused that to happen?  And what are some of the various views about where this current period of retreat might fall within the overall cycle?  I would think the potential implications of the answers to those questions would be profound, and would be particularly noteworthy given the global warming controversy.
Just my two cents.  --Gordon Jones 05:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article addresses only the time period of 1850 and later. I draws no conclusions from previous periods and is essentially a "current events" topic (geologically speaking). We deliberately did not discuss global warming as that is an area unto itself. Essentially, the glaciers today are at close to an all time ebb from the end of the last ice age.--MONGO 09:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing perspective: current period of retreat in an historical context? 

message: Hey, guys, thanks for bailing me out. I was reverting a long string of vandalism and I also, without noticing it, reverted across some vandal's deletion. The upshot of this was that I lost a whole pile of stuff. Whilst trying to fix the huge mess I'd made, other editors rushed right in and fixed it up before I could shake a stick at it. This is a very well-maintained page by the look of your speed and accuracy. Thanks again and keep up the good work. — Dave 14:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks