Jump to content

Talk:Younger Dryas: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Lytel (talk | contribs)
Line 44: Line 44:


:Revert was in line with the manual of style, see [[MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN]]. Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] when interacting with other editors. [[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] ([[User talk:Hypnôs|talk]]) 18:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
:Revert was in line with the manual of style, see [[MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN]]. Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] when interacting with other editors. [[User:Hypnôs|Hypnôs]] ([[User talk:Hypnôs|talk]]) 18:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

::What's the point of making information harder to find in an encyclopedia? But as long as there's a policy, it will be followed bureaucratically without thought. "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense"... or is it?

Revision as of 18:12, 12 August 2023

Added "equally" to the intro (3rd paragraph) to make the statement clearer.

Since the worldwide average changed (see the 3rd picture in the article), it did affect the average worldwide, although not equally in every region of the planet. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified a litte more. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laacher See is not ruled out

The role of the Laacher See eruption (LSE), or volcanoes in general, as the cause of the Younger Dryas (YD) is not completely ruled out. The 200-year gap (between YD and LSE) was actually well-known and established back in the 1990s by varve counts (see [1]). 2021 Nature paper just determined absolute dates.

What has been long ruled out is the direct radiative effect from volcanic materials, e.g. aerosol clouds, as they have a relatively short lifetime of 2-3 years. The possibility of direct volcanic cooling was eliminated long time ago.

The indirect impact of the LSE (and the cluster of eruptions near the onset of YD) to long-term atmosphere-ocean-ice positive feedback, which operates on a timescale of decades to centuries, is not ruled out. This could have potentially played a role in triggering the YD, see more informed recent discussions [2] and [3].

High-latitude eruption weakening AMOC (main driver of YD) only decades after eruption is recently shown [4]

@Proxy data: I'm not claiming that LSE is the favored hypothesis (in fact it is not). It's just not ruled out (or fringe) as many commonly assume when they see the 200-year gap. Aleral Wei (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of map.

I have reverted the addition of the map at [5], primarily because it is unsourced. All maps should be based on - and attributed to - a reliable source. There are two other points. 1. I am doubtful of its accuracy. Britain and Ireland are shown as connected. My understanding it that it is disputed whether they were connected at the LGM, and certainly not during the YD. 2. Several of the colours are impossible to tell apart for someone like myself who is colourblind. There are colourblind friendly palettes on the web, and it would be helpful to readers to use one of them. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Linked above"

Dudley Miles I knew it was linked above, I read 75% of the article, and then checked the See Also, and then used Ctrl+F to find the link to it, hence why I thought (as a directly related topic) Younger Dryas impact hypothesis would be useful in the "See Also" section where people will look for it. Other pages which are linked in the text appear in the See Also, such as Older Dryas, so your revert seems petty and makes the article worse. Lytel (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert was in line with the manual of style, see MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN. Please assume good faith when interacting with other editors. Hypnôs (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of making information harder to find in an encyclopedia? But as long as there's a policy, it will be followed bureaucratically without thought. "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense"... or is it?