Talk:Giant current ripples

Older comments

Pleas, help my with edition of this paper - I do not can english, only russian! ru:Heljqfy--Heljqfy 04:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a Creationist article written by a Creationist. It is psuedo-geology in disguise as real science. It is an attempt to smuggle Creationist perspectives into mainstream lay-science using Wikipedia because it is not peer reviewed. The term "Diluvial" was conciously abandoned by legitimate Geologists over 70 years ago - for it's specific reference to, and implication of, a biblical global flood. Giant current ripples are known to be a result of specific glacial outburst flood events, and are not related to any hypothetical or mythical global flood. 68.238.137.127 (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not creationist. See, pleas, my paper Diluvium here! ru:Heljqfy--Heljqfy 10:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Heljqfy talk

The author used sloppy English. The article is unreadable. Same thing with the article in Russian by the way. --Christina Bedina (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the article is horrible and almost unreadable. It needs to be 8 times shorter and re-written completely for clarity and focus. Preferably by a geologist. I would almost like to suggest we use the paragraph from 68.238.137.127 above as a replacement for this entire article and it would be far better. Unfortunately I don't have time to research/tackle this but it should be tagged by someone. --trisweb (Talk) 11:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Missoula flood citations

@Kevmin: I removed the citations before 2016 that were about the number of Missoula floods, because the 89 number is relatively new. I didn't want readers to get confused by out-of-date citations that may contradict the latest research. Is that ok with you? — hike395 (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if we want to report the controversy, we can cite the older Waitt paper and replace 89 by "many". It looks like the Hanson paper gets 89 from (Atwater, 1989), currently uncited. — hike395 (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but is there controversy to report, scientifically speaking. The latest two papers we added both document numerous events. I didn't immediately find a full version of the 2020 paper, you stated it lists only 40ish events? If so that would seem to contradict the 2016 paper, but that one does list 39 or so events directly at their sample sites so its NOT actually a different number (since 89 is from the opening paragraph and given as historical context, not as a conclusion/result of their work)--Kev min § 00:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Preprint of O'Connor et al. (2020) is available at Ifremer's institutional repository, Document n°73634. For discussions of the flood chronology look at the 2021, open access paper, "Chronology of Missoula Flood Deposits at the Coyote Canyon Mammoth Site, Washington State, USA." and the 2016, open access paper, "Megafloods and Clovis cache at Wenatchee, Washington." Paul H. (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note. There is all sorts of fun PDF files at the Friends of the Pleistocene web page. This includes "10Be dating of late Pleistocene megafloods and Cordilleran Ice Sheet retreat in the northwestern United States". It and many more PDFs of critical papers can be found at the 2018 Pacific Northwest Cell Friends of the Pleistocene web page. Paul H. (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 paper says "dozens—likely more than a hundred" floods occurred, so it could be higher than 89 (which, as Kevmin points out, is a Atwater number, not a Hanson number). For the purposes of this article, perhaps we could say "many" and leave the references as they currently stand? — hike395 (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about "at least 39" ? — hike395 (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very comfortable with the "at least 39" option.--Kev min § 16:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]