Talk:Glacier mass balance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
 |
This is quite a nice article but it isn't about glacier dynamics!. Its about glacier mass balance. Glacier dynamics, to a glacio, definitely means the mechanisms and underlying equations of how glaciers move... Glen's flow law [1] and such William M. Connolley 21:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- What would be a better title? I'm happy to change it; I'm not remotely a glaciologist or climatologist, and was just borrowing the section title of Glacier retreat. Or alternately, is it possible to expand this article to cover its title? If so, what needs to be included? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think Glacier mass balance would be best, and being Bold I've done it. Glacier dynamics doesn't fit well with mass balance, I think (I'm not a glacio either, but I talk to them over coffee sometimes). Now to fix some redirects... William M. Connolley 22:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice job...that was fast...this is exactly what was needed and a brief summary of this data in the Glacier retreat article is most appropriate.--MONGO 01:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Aaaghh! Ignore a few of the recent revisions. I accidentally pasted in my in-progress changes to Glacier retreat. But it's fixed now, so other than a weird change history, the article is fine. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not think this needs to be like glacier retreat looking at every geographic location and reviewing all the data. Instead I thought the focus should be on methods, global results and key results from a few long term extensive program. Three are briefly noted already. The others will be on the USGS, Swedish work on Storglacier and the Austrians on Hinteriesferner and the Canadians in the Arctic. I want to create a history of mass balance measurement too. Peltoms 15:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. I think it would be nice to add an illustration or two of techniques, if such can be found. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- The technique pictures have been added and I have added all but the Canadian Arctic section. I do no want to get into more detail really. It is simple and straightforward now I think. Peltoms 21:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- The content looks good to me, but I will try to read it more closely in a few days. I think the illustrations are splendid. Thank you for adding them. So many of the techniques of modern science are too arcane to be easily understood by most readers. It is exciting to have a partial exception to this rule. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sometimes in science though rarely acknowledged less technology can yield good results. We always look for the easy-physcially method and science thinks more technology=more accuracy. But in this case it does not.Peltoms 13:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The technique pictures have been added and I have added all but the Canadian Arctic section. I do no want to get into more detail really. It is simple and straightforward now I think. Peltoms 21:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
