Talk:Quaternary glaciation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Glaciers WikiProject, a collaborative WikiProject related to glaciers and glaciology worldwide. It may include the Glacier infobox. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Start 2 Billions of Years 3 Comments 4 Article organization 5 Antarctica

[edit] Start

Hi. I want to make an article specifically about the Pleistocene glaciation. Then, I hope it can be summarized in the article about the Pleistocene epoch. ~ UBeR 16:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billions of Years

Don't you mean million, not billion? Vegasprof 00:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Feel free to change or delete anything you think is wrong. I hope to continue writing and expanding when I can, and eventually get it all referenced. ~ UBeR 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Although the intro briefly mentions that there have been more than one cycle, the impression given overall is that there was one glaciation (These ice sheets started to disappear only between 15,000 and 20,000 years ago... suggests that they haven't disappeared before). One of the ice core, or ocean sediment pics, would help explain the cycles. As would mentioning that they have a 40k/100k cycle. The text at present reads strongly from a geologists perspective.

Also, we're still in the ice age - current ice is roughly at the same state as the last interglacial. So speaking of the ice age in the past tense is odd.

During the the glaciation, which began between two and three million years ago, the normal hydrologic system was completely interrupted... again makes it sound like one event. There was presumably no disruption during the various interglacials.

William M. Connolley 09:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this comment in my watchlist. I can't help but to agree: we're still in an ice age, currently in an interglacial, which still has remnants of the massive ice sheets. Colloquially, however, most people will refer to the ice age as the last glacial. I would favor using language that implies we're still in a period of ice cover, i.e. still in an ice age. There might be a technical problem in that the Holocene began with the current interglacial, whilst this article specifically discusses the Pleistocene extent of the ice age. I'm not sure that this distinction is important though.

Any ambiguity should be fixed, of course. I think the sentence "Extensive evidence now shows that a number of periods of growth and retreat of continental glaciers occurred during the ice age" shows that there have been multiple glacials and interglacials within the Pleistocene ice age. If you know of any pictures that are currently on Wikipedia or could be uploaded on to Wikipedia, it would be great to include them. I think a big problem for encyclopedias is to clearly explain ideas and information to the general reader so that they get a clear image and understanding of the topic and general ideas surrounding the topic. Any help in this regard would be greatly appreciated. (Edit: see also User:UBeR/glaciation.)

Of course, it would also be great to broaden this article, including climatological and biological aspects of the glaciation, as well as giving historical perspective. The NA should be cut, for a separate article. (See below thread.) ~ UBeR (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a big problem, because since the article talks about the P glaciation, its forced to start the P glac *was* and this is very confusing. The problem is that ehe Holocene is nothing special and shouldn't really exist; We're still in the P, really. Really the article should say the P glac *is*, and a bit lower down perhaps explain that the P is formally over. The P article itself pretty well admits that the "official" P timeperiod starts at the wrong time William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could use Quaternary glaciation instead. What do you think? ~ UBeR (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be an excellent idea, and appears to solve both problems William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A minor problem is that QG gets 9k google hits vs 23k for PG. But I can live with that easily William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Without the quotation marks, Quaternary seems to be discussed just as much as the Pleistocene in the context of the ice age. It also seems to me that "Quaternary glaciation" is used more in contemporary sources. I don't think it shuold be a problem. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see you've moved it: good. I've hacked the intro a bit. I *think* its important for people to realise the ice age periodicity and what everything means before talking too much about effects (this is probably a climatologist/core perspective; the geologists tend to see things a bit differently because they see geomorphology). I may have over stressed the meaning-of-ice-age but again, it can get very confusing unless we sure what we mean. I stuffed in the ice core pic; actually an ocean sediment core pic would be better, but I couldn't find one William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good. I think people will get a better perspective now. I'll try to add some more stuff to the body now, other than effects. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article organization

Already, the article is a getting long, and there's a lot more to be said. I don't think it should be overly-focused on the North American extent of the glaciation. For that reason, I would suggest a separate article, something like Pleistocene glaciation in North America, in which specific NA effects, perspectives, etc. could be discussed (Edit: I've removed the NA stuff). It could then be properly summarized here, per WP:SUMMARY.

A general outline that I have mind includes: (This is outdated See blow)

I. Intro
II. Historical perspective
III. Effects

A. Lakes

1. Pluvial lakes

B. Oceans

1. Sea level

C. Biological

D. Climate (or "Climatological")

E. Winds

(F. In NA)?

IV. Causes

Input and suggestions are appreciated! ~ UBeR (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is outdated. So far, it should probably look something like this:

I. Intro

II. Causes

A. Astronomical cycles

B. Atmospheric composition

C. Plate tectonics and ocean circulation

III. Effects

A. Sea level / Oceans (not started)

B. Lakes

1. Pluvial lakes

C. Drainage systems (not started)

D. Isostatic adjustment

E. Winds

F. Flora and fauna (not started)

IV. Records of prior ice ages (or "prior glaciation")

V. The "next ice age"

VI. See also

VII. References

VIII. External links

Thoughts? ~ UBeR (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antarctica

The intro reads, "The Quaternary glaciation . . . refers to the period of the last few million years (2.58 Ma to present) in which a permanent ice sheet was established in Antarctica and probably Greenland . . ."

This might be somewhat confusing to the reader, however. Ice sheets on Antarctica weren't formed 3 Ma, per se (see geology of Antarctica). Glaciation there began some 20 Ma, long before the Quaternary. It simply has continued since then. I don't know whether this warrants a change in the wording for the intro. Thoughts? ~ UBeR (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, this could be explained somewhere in the main body of the article. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)