Talk for Story "Places most likely to be affected by sea level rise"

Talk about this Story

  1. Rewrite

    “In 12,000 B.C., the modern state of Florida was more than twice the size it is today” is nonsense: the modern state of Florida did not exist in 12,000 BC. Perhaps “In 12,000 BC the peninsula now occupied by the state of Florida”, or simply “in 12,000 BC the Florida peninsula”.

  2. Rewrite

    What’s the basis for listing London here?

    London is protects by a tidal barrier that is estimated to be effective for decades, and it’s position allows for a more substantial barrier to be (relatively) easily constructed in its place before the current one is overwhelmed.

    Edited: 2018-07-05 23:28:23 By

    (talk | contributions) + 7 Characters .. + 2% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

  3. Rewrite

    I looked for sources about effects on sea level rise in Europe (which would include the Netherlands). This page looks interesting: http://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/index.php/Meeresspiegelanstieg_in_Europa

    The wiki seems to be run by the official education agency of the City of Hamburg in Germany (http://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/index.php/Klimawandel:Impressum).

    Manual translation of the key data from the table http://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/index.php/Datei:Meeresspiegel_eu_staaten.gif at the bottom:

    The table at the bottom gives some numbers. With a 1 m sea level rise, 20’277 km^2 of the Netherlands would be at risk (48.4% of the total area) which would affect over 5.1 million people. The same rise would eat 13’910 km^2 from Germany (4% of the area) and put 1.6 million people at risk.

    If the level rises by 5 meters, 26’661 km^2 of the Netherlands would be at risk (63.6% of the area) affecting 7.7 million people. For Germany almost the same amount of land – 22’211 km^2 – would be affected. Since Germany is much bigger, that is “only” 6.2% of the total area. 2.9 million people live there.

    Under heading 5 are a couple of links where you do your own visualizations of the data.

    1. Rewrite

      Thanks very much Aaron for the links. Would you like to join our Data Visualization wikiproject? – https://www.wikitribune.com/project/data-visualization-implementation-at-wt/ I will have a go at trying to visualize the data you suggest but am no expert so may need help! Perhaps we can also come up with some ideas for environmental data to data visualize.

  4. The sourcing for this story could use some dramatic improvement. Let me give just one example: “Between 5 and 11 inches of sea-level rise is likely in New York City between 2000 and 2030” is sourced to https://eu.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/10/23/catastrophic-sandy-like-floods-could-hit-nyc-every-5-years-due-sea-level-rise/791581001/ It strikes me as a very odd thing to say that a certain amount of sea-level rise “is likely” “between 2000 and 2030” given that it was 2017 when USA Today said it. This hints at some kind of error. I looked for the study that they are relying on (they don’t make it easy, since they only give one co-author and the name of the journal near the very end of their piece). But I believe I found the original here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/03/1703568114 The original would make for a much better source, but unfortunately as far as I have been able to determine, it doesn’t make the claim that USA Today makes. In general, I would suggest that popular newspapers are not really valid sources for WikiTribune articles about scientific matters. I wouldn’t propose an absolute ban – but we should do better whenever we can.

    1. Yep fair enough. Can we add in links to newspapers, but then put something to the effect of ‘link to academic study needed’ and if not found after a certain period of time remove it? It’s just that if people submit links to claims they have found from news stories but I can’t find it, that doesn’t necessarily mean such academic stories don’t exist, and by letting the community look for studies to back up claims too, it makes them rather than me the arbiter.

      1. Yes – in Wikipedia the way we do it is just add {{fact}} which annotates the article with the famous ‘citation needed’. In this kind of case, it would be something like ‘better source desirable’.

        1. Rewrite

          Is there a feature like that here? Many of the entries ought to be tagged that way.

Subscribe to our newsletter and be the first to collaborate on our developing stories:

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Email us