Jump to content

Talk:Ice age

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClarkoEye (talk | contribs) at 07:54, 13 June 2018 (→‎A better image: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Article clarifications and improvements

There are a number of changes that would help clarify the area of Ice Age or glaciation in general. These include:

  • This article should not deal with climate change caused by human activities. Ice ages (or glacio-epochs) have been part of Earth history for 3Ga (3 billion years). Human induced climate change is recent and has very little to do with long term glaciation.
  • The summary is very dated and the references are quite old.
  • The summary focuses on recent glacial events (last 2.5 Ma), this is a very small part of the entire history of glaciation. The Pleistocene, holocene, and references to existing ice sheets do not need to be mentioned here.

I hope to update this section soon. Once these changes are in place, further changes in the article will be made. Mark Buchanan (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article also uses the term 'ice age' for recent glaciations of the Quaternary as well as long term ancient periods of glaciation like the Huronian. I propose changing the wording where 'ice age' is used for Quaternary glacial cycles for better clarity. Mark Buchanan (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Within the paragraph about Negative feedback mechanisms for an ice age, please edit "ice age" to "glacial period." For example "According to research published in Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next ice age." That should be "will defer the next GLACIAL PERIOD." This wikipedia article clearly (and multiple times) states the difference between ice ages and glacial periods and that we are currently in an ice age, but interglacial period. Come on, people! Use your brains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.242.206.76 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mammals appeared around 10 million years ago on this globe. The Dinosaurs went extinct around 19 million years ago when chuxaba in the yucatan killed them. There is a lot of error in scientific classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.70 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To correct three major errors in the preceding statement: Mammals have been around for more than 160 million years [1] considering that marsupials preceded placental mammals. The Chicxulub event in the Yucatan [2] is dated at 66 million years ago, corresponding with the extinction of the dinosaurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.239.67 (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rats

I SMELL A RAT!

I smell a rat There might not be a rat... But at least it's something "fishy" I smell.

I was in the midst of writing a reply in Quora regarding "ice age" intervals, and came to Wikipedia to do some research, but all I've found is more confusion. There is no consistency in the usage of the term "ice age", even within this article, let alone between articles (on Wikipedia). And it seems to me that the definition described here may not be valid. Information provided in Wikipedia should be compatible and consistent with standard scientific usage. Otherwise, Wikipedia is propagating misinformation.... a.k.a. "alternative facts". We already have Conservapedia for that purpose. No need for another.

I will continue researching this, but I wanted to post my concerns here, while I'm thinking of it.

I've seen the argument raised in a number of Quora answers recently that the term "Ice age" should not refer to a single "glacial" interval, but should include the interglacials as well, and that the term "Ice Age" should refer to the entire broad sequence of glacial-interglacial cycles... in other words, corresponding to the entire Pleistocene. I do have a PhD in Geology (from Penn State), but I AM NOT an expert in Pleistocene/Quaternary geology, so I MIGHT be wrong about this, but frankly, I have never previously heard of the term "ice age" being used to encompass both the glacial and interglacial intervals. It makes no sense, it's incompatible with widely used dictionary definitions of "ice age" which is a episode dominated by the growth and expansion of glaciers. Moreover, by this definition we are currently in an "ice age", which I think is absurd.

This would not be the first time glitches in nomenclature have occurred in geology, but I want to make certain that this web page is not being co-opted by anti-science people.

One thing I do consider myself an expert in is the social phenomenon of denialism. Denialism is a contagious "social disease" that robs its victims of the capacity for honest self-reflection and critical thinking, while giving them the impression that they're much better at it than anyone else. Denialism evolves organically, from a grass roots level, through various contributions made by many individuals. One of the most frequent strategies used in denialism is the creation of ambiguity and confusion. This helps them to promote their own anti-science views as representing "true science". I had a vague suspicion in the back of my mind that this definition of "ice age" might be an element of Anthropogenic Global Warming Denialism, but nothing really to base it on.

Since I've started looking a little bit, I've encountered three additional "data points". The first came in the form of a web page I visited that had a lengthy rant about "ice age" referring to the entire Pleistocene, which just so happened to promote AGW Denialism as well. https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/11/24/ice-ages-and-glacial-epochs-whats-the-difference/ Coincidence? Dunno. Then, in the discussion section for this (Wikipedia) page, I saw that there has been some problem in the past with authors using it to promote AGW Denialism. And thirdly... most importantly, there does not seem to be any authoritative reference to the source of this definition in the Wikipedia page itself.

If this is what Quaternary geology EXPERTS would like the term "ice age" to mean, I would have to grudgingly yield to them. I'm just staunchly opposed to "alternative facts" and anti-science.

Sorry about one more thing... I am a total ignorant newbie at Wikipedia editing. I'm FAR from confident that this is the proper way to post these comments.

Thanks, Jeffrey Levine, PhD TreeDoctor (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Subject/headline TreeDoctor (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, aren't you on the wrong talk page? The distinction about glacial periods is clearly explained in the lede of ice age William M. Connolley (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New ice age modulation theory

A new theory on ice age modulation has been published recently. It suggests that Milankovitch insolation variations regulate interglacials, but only intermittently, because strong northern hemisphere albedo often prevents warming. To overcome this, the paper suggests that CO2 must first reduce to a minimum, which causes flora dieback and the formation of CO2 deserts. This in turn causes dust storm eras, which lower the albedo of the ice sheets and allow an interglacial to proceed.

Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305

I note the actual ice age page is protected, so I would be grateful if this additional section could be added.

Tatelyle (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this editor turned out to be the author of the paper (and a climate change denier) and has been blocked as a sock. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong in having different opinions on global warming or climate change, and there have been multiple reports lately that there's a chance for a new ice age because of decline in solar activity. Beatitudinem (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen reports in the press, but nothing credible. Refs? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One scientific report that has been cited a lot in the media as a sign of a new ice age is one from three British authors titled "Prediction of Solar Activity from Solar Background Magnetic Field Variations in Cycles 21-23". You can read it here and another titled "Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo" from the Royal Astronomical Society. You can find that one here. They don't say that there will be an ice age, but their conclusions are that reduced or changed solar activity will have an impact on climate, and as such there will be colder climate and maybe even a new ice age. Note that we today have a record high solar activity setting new records. Beatitudinem (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[3]: doesn't mention ice ages. Indeed, says nothing about climate at all. Also, is from 2014, so not even new. [4] doesn't mention climate either. You claim their conclusions are that reduced or changed solar activity will have an impact on climate - I can't understand why you'd say that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the articles I linked aren't about the climate, but about solar activity. I'm sure you are able to draw conclusions based on scientific agreement that reduced solar activity has an impact on the climate. Just as an article on a increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact on the climate as well. Maybe this isn't your strongest field of interest?Beatitudinem (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first article says nothing about whether the effect is strong enough to affect climate. The second is about one model which predicts a temporary reduction in the suns's output if it is correct. It does not say anything about whether the effect will be strong enough to counteract the buildup in greenhouse gases, and if a Maunder minimum did temporarily slow down global warming, the only effect would be to discourage effective action even more, leading to even greater global warming in the long term. There is no implication in either article that we are heading for a new ice age. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you are able to draw conclusions based... please see WP:NOR or perhaps better WP:SYN. Maybe this isn't your... - ah, youth William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ice age. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"by this definition"

I'm somewhat confused about the statements in the first paragraph.

In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.

Currently there are ice sheets in both the northern and southern hemispheres, so that would make me think that the current period is labeled an ice age. However, right after this, it says:

By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age.

And then goes on:

The ice age began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.

The first and third quote make me think we're in an ice age, but the second quote and the articles on Holocene and Pleistocene make me think we're in an interglacial. If there is a definitive answer, it should be made clear. If there is disagreement, then that should be noted, instead. 145.136.78.43 (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit confusing. The answer is the word "extensive"; the Greenland ice sheet isn't, by comparison with the Laurentide William M. Connolley (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're in both an ice age and an interglacial. The terms are not mutually exclusive. As indicated by the second sentence, interglacials are periods of relative warming within an ice age. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Treating the Holocene as a separate epoch seems artificial and confusing. The Eemian 125,000 years ago is an interglacial within the Pleistocene, and sea levels were higher and ice sheets less extensive than today. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

typo

Isn't sceptical misspelled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.58.136 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not misspelt. DuncanHill (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


This article seems to explain global warming better than any of the global warming articles in Wikipedia. The rise of agriculture over thousands of years and the scrubbing effects of certain mountainous areas are particularly interesting as are earth orbit and sun energy output matching ice ages. It appears these processes are more complex and uncontrollable by man than most want to admit. Any little bit we could possibly do seem far overwhelmed by natural processes which we have only a minute understanding of. 2601:181:8301:4510:9446:C7F0:8082:F2FE (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current ice age

I have reverted the reference to "current ice age" as going back 33.9 million years, even though it is defined that way in Current Ice Age. I cannot find any reliable sources for this usage, and I have proposed at Talk:Current Ice Age that the article should be changed to a redirect to Quaternary glaciation. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Causes of ice ages" needs a touch-up

The first paragraph of the section "Causes of ice ages" has a long sentence with a missing comma which would be easier to read if broken up and/or given dot points or some sort of numbering. I suggest something like this: "The consensus is that several factors are important: (a) atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica over the past 800,000 years), (b) changes in the earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles, (c) the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents, variations in solar output, (d) the orbital dynamics of the Earth–Moon system, and (e) the impact of relatively large meteorites and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes." ClarkoEye (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A better image

I would like to see a better image of the earth. It is obviously an 'artifact', which is unfortunate in a factual article, even if acknowledged as an artist's work. The boundary between day and night should be a true ellipse, but it isn't. This is obvious to anyone who works with 3D CAD systems and geometric images generally. ClarkoEye (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ice_age&oldid=845656181"