Talk:Heinrich event

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heinrich event article.
Article policies
Good article Heinrich event has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Earth sciences Portal
Heinrich event is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Changes

I've made some changes, some of which undo some of Wetmans changes (sorry). As far as I can tell, HE's are very specific things as far as the glacios are concerned, and there are 6 of them. They aren't the same as D-O events and they aren't the same thing as the more recent shorter cycles. Also I'm a bit unclear in which way H3 and H6 are different but I think its not just in terms of their sources. William M. Connolley 21:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC).

I've added some external links, so that a reader who finds the present article insufficient and inconclusive may read some recent science on the subject. --Wetman 00:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hemming (2004) reports that there is little published evidence for Heinrich events in previous glacial periods, though Stokes may beg to differ in the 2005 edition of Global and Planetary Change. Moved the italicized addition here. Anyone want to render this obscure hint relevant? --Wetman 17:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No idea. Was intending to try to find out... might be [1] William M. Connolley 17:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC). Oh, and if it *is* that then we should leave it out: its still in press. Unless we're into really topical science, we shouldn't be including stuff within a year of publication really. William M. Connolley 17:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC).
BTW, Heinrich events are related to, but not the same as, Dansgaard-Oeschger events is, I agree, unsatisfactory. I shall try to improve that. William M. Connolley 17:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Popularized explanation

It would be nice to add popular-science-like explanation into introduction part of the article, here and for Dansgaard-Oeschger event as well. Readers would appreciate it. 02:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hemming 2004

Where have the ages for the Heinrich events been taken from? They don't appear in the article.

The dates are sourced in the table. I can't remember if Hemming states them explicitly or if I had to read them off a graph. William M. Connolley 15:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] August 2006

There is an easy answer to Conolley's question. The mineral assemblage of H1,2,4,5 ist different from H3 and H6. The latters are characterized by higher amounts of the clay mineral smectite (weathering product of volcanic rock) and volcanic glass shards. All this points to a stronger supply of ice from the Norwegian-Greenland Sea area. Whereas H1,2,4, and 5 have mineral assemblages of the Laurentian region.[User: Hartmut Heinrich, 10 Aug 2006]

Richard Alley's estimate on the volume of ice discharged during a H event (370 km³) seems by far too small. New investigations (satellite gravimetry) report an annual loss from Greenland of about 230 km³ due to the present climate warming. Are we "enjoying" a H event? :-)[User: H Heinrich, 11 Aug 2006]

Good spot H. The actual figure is 370 000 000 000 km³… Verisimilus T 18:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coiuld use some clarification

This phrase is confusing. Perhaps it makes sense if you already know something about Heinrich events, but why wouldn't H3 and H6 be "different"? If they were the same, wouldn't they have the same name?

Six such events, labelled H1-H6, have been identified. There is some evidence that H3 and H6 are different.

Some context would help readers understand just how much the volume of water below is; is there something to which we can compare it?

the volume of freshwater discharged by a typical Heinrich event as 370 km3

Also, what's a "glacial"? An ice age? Clarifying that, and linking to an appropriate Wikipedia article, would help.

Most importantly, what characterizes a Heinrich events? Anything beyond lots of icebergs and fresh water? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.53.49 (talk • contribs) .

I added a link to the "last glacial" which is hard to name as it has different names in different part of the world - see the link in this very sentence. I also added a sentence on the possible sources of the water discharge. I believe that otherwise the definition in the article is well done. Friendly Neighbour 10:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA Nomination

This is a good article but it has some issues which will take a while to fix.

- Article needs a lot more references. I don't mean as in more references being used but as the facts currently in the article need to be sourced.

-I could not understand the lead section. I think it needs a complete rewrite to make it understandable to those who know little about the topic. It also needs to be made into two or three paragraphs.

- The section heading "H3 & 6 - Heinrich events?" needs to be changed. Usually questions are not put as section headings and according to the Manual of Style the word "and" should be written out.

- There are a few one sentence paragraphs which need to merged or cut.

- In the External Forces section several words are in bold. I could not figure out why.

- In the internal Forces section, the word not is in itallics.

I hope someone will resubmit this article. It is close! --Banana 02:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for your review and constructive feedback!
I've had a look at the article and made a few changes, and will continue to make more.
However, I'd quite like to keep the bolding of the different explanations, as I think it makes reading clearer, especially to a skim-reader. It seems to be legit with the MOS - see this page, which admittedly uses bulleted points.
And whilst I've removed the italics from "not", I think this makes reading a little easier, too, emphasising the difference. Do I have to get rid of it?
Thanks, Verisimilus T 10:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Though I avoid the jury process and don't care whether this good article is a "Good Article" or not, I have some suggestions to make this fine presentation more user-friendly. Nordic Sea is an unfamiliar term: is the Norwegian Sea intended? Hartmut Heinrich: introduce him, as formerly, as soon as the reader is asking "Why 'Heinrich'"? "Density-driven circulation": identify it as identical to the thermohaline circulation. The specialized vocabulary always needs to be given an unobtrusive phrase in apposition at its first appearance: alkenone, speleothem, aren't in the usual reader's vocabulary: what if the reader is asking "What's a lithic?" Most of the bulleted items can be expanded, not to be so gnomic: ask "why is this so?" at each instance. Writing out Thorium-230 is friendlier. --Wetman 11:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review

This is a well written, well sourced and comprehensive article. The only issue, that I have with it, is the lead section. It should provide a summary of the article and not to introduce any data that are not mentioned in the main text. For instance, the second paragraph should be moved to a different section as it defines the volume of fresh water. Some information in the third paragraph is also not mentioned in the main text. In addition the main text lacks any definition of Heinrich events themselves, it is only present in the lead. I hope that the lead section can be rewritten quickly so I can promote the article to GA status. Ruslik 10:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I'll take a proper look at re-structuring the article when I'm feeling a little better! Verisimilus T 11:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've moved some bits of the lede into the article. I feel that the first two paragraphs of the Diagnosis section now give a suitable explanation of what a H event is, but am open to your thoughts. Thanks again for your review, hope you find this okay! Verisimilus T 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The lead is OK now. However I don't see any definition like: "Heinrich events are defined as periods during the last glacial period when vast amounts of ice in the form of icebergs were dumped into the North Atlantic." or smth like this. In addition it may be useful to move the "Timing" section to the beginning of the article and to start it with this definition. The current position of the "Timing" section seems a bit odd. It'd be better to define the events, then provide their timings and then discuss diagnostics etc. Ruslik 18:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Since there is no answer I agree that the article has failed GA. Ruslik 11:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, been a bit busy. Will fix presently - is it alright if I get in touch with you once I've done it and you reconsider it for GA then? Cheers. Verisimilus T 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Please also add some inline citations. Quite important in a GA. Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There are several inline citations already present in the article. See WP:CITE#Harvard_referencing.
Unfortunatly, I have already removed it from the list of candidates. However it you do the job and renominate it I will review this article again. Ruslik 11:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Verisimilus T 12:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
...and now Verisimilus sees the difference between this and the peer review process, with which V. is familiar. --Wetman 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
— Verisimilus T 18:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review (2)

Since my suggestions from the previous review (see above) have been taken into account, now I think that the article passes GA. Ruslik 08:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks for taking the time to review this article and provide feedback. Verisimilus T 13:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious fact error in estimated water volume

In the second paragraph of the "Diagnosis of Heinrich events", it is stated that "Alley & MacAyeal (1994) estimate the volume of fresh water added to the North Atlantic over each 500 year event at around 3.7±1.2×10¹¹ km³ — a huge influx of cold, fresh water that would have had global effects." This is totally wrong, in several ways. The cited numbers "3.7±1.2×10¹¹" refers to IRD (ice-rafted debris), not water. And it is given in cubic meters (m³), NOT cubic kilometers (km³). Quote from Alley & MacAyeal (1994): "Assuming that IRD has a density of 2700 kg m³, the m [mass] we estimate corresponds to an IRD volume of 3.7±1.2×10¹¹ m³". Actually, 3.7±1.2×10¹¹ km³ of water is almost 300 times the total global ocean volume (ca 1.3×109km³, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean), a freshwater contribution that indeed would have global effects.

I suggest that the sentence in question is replaced by this: During Heinrich events, huge volumes of fresh water flow into the ocean. For Heinrich event 4, the fresh water flux has been estimated to 0.29±0.05 Sverdrup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdrup) with a duration of 250±150 years (Roche et al., 2004), equivalent to a fresh water volume of about 2.3 million km³.


References:

Alley, R.B.; MacAyeal, D.R. (1994). "Ice-rafted debris associated with binge/purge oscillations of the Laurentide Ice Sheet". Paleoceanography 9 (4): 503-512. DOI:10.1029/94PA01008.

Roche, D., Paillard, D., Cortijo, E. (2004). "Duration and iceberg volume of Heinrich event 4 from isotope modelling study, Nature 432: 379–382. Cutnell, J. D., and Johnson, K. W.(1995). Physics, 3rd Edition. New York: Wiley: p315. 129.177.53.72 12:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right here, I actually did not check the numbers, when I reviewed it. Ruslik 12:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have added an article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)