Talk:Little Ice Age

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 

Asia?[edit]

Any records of strange weather or crop failures in India, China and the Middle East? 188.221.129.72 (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There should be a whole section on it. The fall of Ming Dynasty was proposed to be at least partially caused by Little Ice Age. 152.2.14.92 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

In the section on North America and Europe, there's a paragraph containing references to North Africa and China. Should that be moved to a separate section, perhaps "Other Northern Hemisphere" or something like that? Crymerci (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Early European settlers reported in 1607-1608 on Lake Superior?[edit]

I'm taking issue with this statement: "In North America, the early European settlers reported exceptionally severe winters. For example, in 1607-1608, ice persisted on Lake Superior until June." The first European credited with the discovery of Lake Superior was Étienne Brûlé roughly around 1618 - ten years before the above statement. Quebec was only founded in 1608. I would like to see an exact quote of: Lamb, Hubert H. (1995). "The little ice age". Climate, history and the modern world. London: Routledge. pp. 211–241. ISBN 0-415-12734-3, which was used as the source. Dinkytown talk 07:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

To User:Dinkytown: Lamb did write that – "And Samuel Champlain, the founder of Quebec, found bearing ice on the edges of Lake Superior in June 1608." [1]. It’s in quite a few other books as well. [2]. But it is contradicted by the many other sources saying Brûlé was the first European there, dates vary, but sometime in the late 1610s or early 1620s. [3]. I’d support taking the Lake Superior example out. Good catch. Novickas (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I can only find one source of the book online and it has major gaps in pages (especially between pages 211-241 which would presumably include the source for the sentence). I would rather the tag stay until we can verify what the source ACTUALLY says, but I'm not hard bent either way. Ckruschke (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Sorry to hear that you can't see it thru the Google book link provided above- they do some strange access juggling sometimes. Maybe you could confirm it for yourself by using the Amazon Look Inside feature, its link for this book is [[4]]. You can't permalink to a search result, but once you're at that specific Look Inside page, you can put in the search term 1608. It returns only 1 result page, showing the sentence quoted above that begins with "And Samuel Champlain, the founder..." It's on page 220. Novickas (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh - ok - I'm sorry, I misread your post. Couldn't we rewrite the sentence to say:
In North America, Hubert H. Lamb reports in his early work "Climate, History, and the Modern World" that Samuel Champlain noted bearing ice along the edges of Lake Superior in June 1608. However, later historians question whether Champlain even reached Lake Superior by 1608 so this evidence may be anecdotal.
That sounds kind of weird, but my concern is that someone will come back and reinsert this based upon the weight Lamb's book brings to the subject. I'm not sold either way though and am ok with the deletion or whatever you guys decide. Ckruschke (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Hi User:Novickas, Hi User:Ckruschke - thank you for your thoughts on this matter. I believe that there are several things wrong with this statement. First, having ice along the shore of Lake Superior, is like having snow in Minnesota (where I'm from) - obvious... The lake also completely freezes over once every ten years or so, so having ice on the shore would be quite normal. In fact, there are often 'ice boulders' the size of a small house on the shore from the wind pushing it around. Second, I didn't even know that Champlain even made it out to Lake Superior, so this is something that is new to me. According to Lamb, Champlain's discovery of Lake Superior pre-dates Brûlé. I'm curious as to where Lamb got this source. I'm thinking that because the above statement is not a good example (walking from Manhattan to Staten Island is a much better one), and that there seams to be a conflict of who 'discovered' Lake Superior between Champlain and Brûlé that it might not be a good idea to remove this statement all together, until the Champlain source can be brought to light. I would love to use it, but this might be a source of conflict between the two would-be-first explorers. Take care.... Dinkytown talk 21:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, BTW - thanks to both of you for citing the sources so easily - :) Dinkytown talk 21:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Good heavens, what a civilized discussion :) A couple of thoughts. We don't have any reliable sources saying 'Lamb was wrong about Champlain seeing ice on Lake Superior in 1608'; just us Wikipedia editors. So maybe we could leave it in and attribute the statement to Lamb, but more briefly, like 'According to Hubert Lamb, Samuel Champlain reported ice along the shores of Lake Superior in June 1608.'(reference) Leaving out the details of the book title and date, which are in the reference. We don't know how Lamb concluded this; we could speculate that Brule reported it in some journal and then maybe a digit got transposed in Lamb's book somewhere along the line (changing 1618 to 1608)? Might be worth a note in the Lake Superior article. BTW, I live near Lake Middling and have only visited Superior in late summer and midwinter, so have no idea whether ice on that lake in June is unusual or not. Novickas (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Dinkytown - I think the point here was "bearing ice in June". I am also from MN (which makes me laugh now that I didn't put 2&2 together on your name - spent many great times down in Dinkytown) and of course you get ice in the winter, but even in Duluth, MN & Thunder Bay, ONT (where I spent the coldest July in my life) you don't get ice in the summer and certainly not bearing ice.
Novickas - I like your suggested sentence and agree we don't need to talk about the book in the sentence. Either that or completely delete it like Dinkytown suggests. Deleting it would probably be easier. I also like putting something in the Lake Superior article. I'll see if I can find a good place for a copy paste of your sentence above. My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

cold[edit]

London was in the Little Ice age had winters 15F degrees colder than they are today by average — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbowellls (talkcontribs) 19:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Jimbowells has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism and such. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

21st Century mini-ice age conjecture[edit]

Apparently we will all put our heads in the sand and deny the existence of this theory. Two of you have struck any link to this article in the Little Ice Age article. Apparently you don't know how to "compare and contrast," distinguish or use a metaphor. This is your religious orthodoxy. Not mine. Plausibly, this could easily be included and would be a good fit in the Little Ice Age#Solar activity or Little Ice Age#Orbital cycles sections. I would think that readers should be apprised of its existence, and make up their minds after they examine the literature. The article as presently written is not WP:POV. I do not think that censorship, suppression or heresy analysis is appropriate. The matters should be freely discussed and vetted. 7&6=thirteen () 22:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss edits please, not editors. You have mischaracterized my revert. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I did not mention any editor(s). If the shoe fits... Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen () 01:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I am discussing edits. To be clear, I am not saying that the theory is correct. But I am saying that it exists as a theory, needs to be discussed and considered. And that includes appropriate links within this article, to inform and empower readers so they can find the other related article. I tried the "See also" section and that was removed. I tried Little Ice Age#Solar activity and that was removed. I am suggesting Little Ice Age#Orbital cycles. All I was trying to do was put in a link, and leave the article without regurgitating the material already in 21st Century mini-ice age conjecture.
Rather than WP:Edit war with you over that, I call that to your attention and hope that the two of you figure it out. 7&6=thirteen () 13:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I am saying no, sorry, its still not worth linking to. There's no need for impatience. If the article you want to link to turns into something worth having, then fine we can link to it. If it remains junk, we can AFD it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It rather is not "the theory", rather it seems like a fringe conjecture. With only references from the Daily Mail, The Times of India, a German newspaper, and a blog - and based on a Russian "Science and Public Policy Institute" report it should not be linked. Unless solid science sources discuss it -- it simply deserves afd. Vsmith (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate data smoothing[edit]

Thoughts on this analysis?

"While the idea that Europe experienced a Little Ice Age is widespread, its statistical basis is at best exiguous, and appears to stem from inappropriate efforts to smooth data that are actually random. At the same time, most of the anecdotal evidence admits more simple explanations than climate change."Shtove (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Might be worth adding, reffing to their papers rather than (or as well as) this blog post. These are primary studies - ideally we'd use secondary academic sources which may not exist yet. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Can't do anything myself - touchy subject!Shtove (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)