2011-12-15 04:08:46WGMS releases 08.90 glacier mass balance survey
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

Link to my take on it.

2011-12-15 04:46:58
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Looks good.  I'd put this in a percentage: "For every growing glacier in 2009, 7 were shrinking."  So about 88% are shrinking?

It would also be good to update the Glaciers are growing rebuttal with this info, and then make a note at the bottom of the post that it was updated.

2011-12-15 04:52:51
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

I'll give the percentage thing some thought. I'll probably change it, and then publish tomorrow evening if this gets a few more positive comments.

 

I originally had a percentage, but remembered my media training when they said that percentages confuse people. But I reckon the SkS readership can probably handle percentages :p

2011-12-15 05:22:32
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I don't think we have anything on the schedule for Friday (North America/Europe time), if you want to publish it then.

Percentages confuse people?  That's weird.  We see percentages all over the place.

2011-12-15 05:22:57
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

From the graph you show it's not apparent that the glacier are shrinking "more quickly than previous decades.", you probably need to drop it.

Otherwise you should explain that large glaciers respond slowly and tend to smooth variability out. For example the decrease in the '40s and '50s probably is the reminder of the warming of the first half of the century and the recent accelerations is the delayed response to the warming resumed in the '70s or '80s.

2011-12-15 07:31:44
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
203.173.238.65

Percentages are good. 3rd pic does show glacier loss increasing in the 'noughties,' but it's not exactly obvious, and as Riccardo points out some numbnut denier is going to focus on the steepness of the line around mid 20th century. That pic will encourage thread derailment. Better off without it, unless it can be satisfactorily explained.

Other than that, thumbs up.

2011-12-15 08:04:23
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

There is a table of the rates of mass loss for the '80s, '90s and '00s. I'll add it in the morning in place of the graph and you can tell me whether to keep it or dump it.

 

I wanted to keep it as short as possible but I also wanted something quantitative. It always pisses me off reading newspaper articles with no data to back up their hand wavey claims!

2011-12-15 08:51:16A writing rule for technical papers, reports, etc
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

According to the style manual of my last employer (an international tramsportation consulting firm), all numbers between 1 and 10, should be expressed as one, two, three, etc. rather than 1, 2, 3...etc. This might be a good convention for SkS authors to follow.  

2011-12-15 09:50:34
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

What's the reasoning for that, John?

 

I have a friend who has to write down every number. Even to the extent of something like nine-hundred-and-ninety-nine-billion-nine...!

2011-12-15 09:50:44
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
216.185.0.2

Looks excellent.

2011-12-15 09:54:03
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

One technical point I wondered about: I couldn't find literature confirmation of the age of Chacaltaya in my quick search. If anyone has more luck, please let me know...

2011-12-15 10:23:33
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

My company writes out numbers up to ten too, depending on the context.  Like 'three years' but '3°C'.  I always forget which we're supposed to use and usually default to writing the number out.

2011-12-15 10:43:43Mark R
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I don't know why the convention was established. Perhaps people process the single digit numbers better if they are presented as words. 

2011-12-16 02:55:10
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

Made some updates. Could people check it again? If you're cool with it Dana, then I'm happy with you publishing it tomorrow.

2011-12-16 12:11:11Suggested revisons
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

The second sentence of the first pragprh reads:

Now that has been confirmed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) in their Glacier Mass Balance Bulletin.

Suggestd revision:

That finding has now been confirmed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) in its recently released Glacier Mass Balance Bulletin 08/09.

Also, embed links to both World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) and the Glacier Mass Balance Bulletin 08/09.


The last sentnce of the second paragraph reads:

We must look at global patterns, and this is what the WGMS do.

Change to:

We must look at global patterns, and this is what the WGMS does.


The thrid, single-sentence, paragprah reads:

Thanks to the time needed to collate the reports, they take years to arrive: the latest version has just been released here and reports data for 2008-2009.

Suggested revision:

Because of the volume of data and the time needed to analyze it, the just released bulletin covers the 2008-2009 time period.


The article should end with text, not a table.  Recoomend that you put the paragprh immeditately before the table to immediately after the table. 

2011-12-16 16:23:29
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

Agreed with John H's comments.  Also, don't forget to update the Glaciers are growing rebuttal with this info so that we can make a note of it at the bottom of the post.

2011-12-16 20:10:03
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

Dana, unfortunately I don't have time to update the glaciers are growing rebuttal. Today's the last day of term and a deadline day, so I have to be available to help students!

 

 

And thanks John, I always struggle with collective nouns and I'm not a wordsmith. I've added your changes.

2011-12-17 02:52:11
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'll take a few minutes to update the rebuttal and then post this.