Talk:Lake retention time

Juggling numbers

• Clinton Lake 6 months
• Faaker See 7.8 months
• Lake Silvaplana c. 250 days
• Lake Sarnen 0.8 years
• Greifensee 420 days
• Lake Zurich 440 days
• Tegernsee 1.28 years
• Lake Walen 1.4258 years
• Lake Murten 1.6 years
• Lake Thun 684 days

That's what is says...OK?

Now, someone who put this together must have worked out that 250 days is more than 7.8 months but less than 0.8 years.

So why didn't the mathematical person who worked out that 250 days was less than this and more than that, actually make the stuff match? This list reads like the stuff of idiots who write for newspapers and say that while 43% do, less than half don't and maybe 2 in a hundred might while 0.05 have really no idea at all.

Fix it, someone! It's a violation of common sense! 1.4258 years! 648 blinking days!

Can I suggest that someone makes the dayish ones into days, up to 365, then you go yearsish. What Grandma reeeally wants to know is, if calculations are made to the 4th decimal point, what happens in Leap Years? --Amandajm 10:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee .. take it easy. The numbers reproduced are those given in the different articles. An easy way to fix it, would be to find references for specific lakes you like, include the reference and update the infoboxes accordingly.

Next time this list is regenerated, it would look the way you like. -- User:Docu

You may like the new version .. it sorts even better. -- User:Docu

Agreed! 0.13th of a day? Who the hell measures days in 100ths?????? Wouldn't three hours be more unidiotic???? "Gotta run to the store. Be back in 0.085th of a day" said no friggin one ever! Typical case of some Wiki author who has been educated way beyond the capacity of his intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.12.162.211 (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Source

Somebody should cite these numbers properly in accordance with WP:CITE. I would, but looking over the external links it wasn't clear to me which "article about the lake" the original poster was referring to. --Jhamon 10:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For "Lake Baikal", it's Lake Baikal, "Crater Lake" it's Crater Lake etc. Hope it's clear now. -- User:Docu

I believe the values for Lake Tahoe and Lake Baikal are in error, there is no way that the retention time for Lake Tahoe can be more than that for Lake Baikal. I would hope that someone familiar with the data for both lakes would make the corrections--Pkrnger 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are from the corresponding articles. Try these or the following sources: (Lake Tahoe) p.2, (Lake Baikal). -- User:Docu

How we can improve this list

From the discussion here, it seems that User:Docu] is automatically generating the list of lake retention times, presumably by using a bot. First question: am I understanding that right?

If so, then there's not much point in my editing the list directly, but perhaps I could make a suggestion. This long list of retention times doesn't really suit what should be an encyclopedic article on the concept of lake retention time. Could it perhaps be moved to a new page called (for example) List of lake retention times and hopefully formatted similarly to List of lakes by volume and List of lakes by depth. There remain issues about providing some geographical context (continent, country or countries), and finding a good way to sort values ranging from <1day to >1,000 years.

Then, in this main article, the very long table could be replaced by a much shorter one of particularly notable lakes. I'm thinking that it would include some with very short or very long documented retention times, plus retention times for some of the world's best known lakes. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the good work in correcting and expanding the article.

In response to your first question, the list was generated from infoboxes. All other {{infobox lake}} didn't provide residence times. The list is already sortable on both columns. Next time, I could include basin country or location field similar to WikiProject_Lakes/Galleries/Image_missing.

As the list gets longer and the article more detailed, it could easily go on another page. Personally I don't think it's a priority though. Lists often provide lengthy introductions. Already now, it's worth providing sample residence times in addition to the main list. -- User:Docu

Klingnauer Stausee's 0.13 days retention time

I think the retention time listed for this lake is a typo. I my opinion, it's probably 13 days, but I could be wrong; I am only a A-level geology stundent... (you probably know what the UK's education system is like :-|)

--Chelokwong (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

0.13 days can also be found in http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es970946h where it was studied precisely because of its low retention time. 3 hours doesn't make it much of a lake though. --Klingnau (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lake retention time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070126234235/http://www.hydromod.de:80/Eurolakes/results/D24.pdf to http://www.hydromod.de/Eurolakes/results/D24.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lake retention time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213073111/http://wldb.ilec.or.jp/Lake.asp?LakeID=SASI-033&RoutePrm=0:;4:load; to http://wldb.ilec.or.jp/Lake.asp?LakeID=SASI-033&RoutePrm=0:;4:load;

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Lake Eucumbene's 1953 years Retention Time

Lake Eucumbene is a dam for hydro-power generation, whose construction begun in 1956. I am not sure how these years are related but the water certainly won't stay in there for more than three years, most likely much less. In 2022 the lake level rose from 40 to 70% within less than five months. https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/generation/live-data/lake-levels/

Can we delete this lake from the list? 2003:A:24:3600:C1F:5C0:AC6A:7F39 (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)