Talk:Ice age/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Causes of ice ages

The lede para for this section isn't as clear as it should be. It needs to be clearer that its talking about ice ages in general, not just the most recent lot William M. Connolley (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"The consensus theory of the scientific community..." Yeah, right. What consensus? I guess that's why his article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.24.22 (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no source for the first paragraph, other than how dinosaur flatulance may have caused the ice age. What about the first few sentences??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.116.81 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Effects of Glaciation

The orthodox effects of ice age glaciation is assumed in this article, i.e., ice is moving from somewhere to somewhere and is digging, scraping, and gouging the earth's surface to give us the artifacts that we see today. Nowhere is it explained what is forcing the ice to move. Hopefully, in a classroom, it is not assumed from a vertical wall map that ice is flowing "down?" Isn't the force of the assumed movement of primary interest? 3km - 4km (~11,500 feet) thickness of ice greatly exceeds the average elevation differences in most areas of North America. What is the source of force that is pushing the "moving" ice to "dig," "scrape," and "gouge" the land? Hanging a vertical map on a wall simply does not supply the force! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GQuickstad (talk • contribs) 16:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Gravity pulls the glaciers downhill (rather than "down the map"). Iapetus (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Major Ice Ages

This section does not measure up rhetorically. It starts by saying there have been 5 major ice ages, then meanders all over regarding naming them - identifying one of them as "minor", and inserting hypothetical causes inconsistently. It's more similar to a stream of consciousness than reflecting clear thinking on the matter. It should be rewritten by someone familiar with the subject matter and ability to keep the subject matter foremost and supplementary information subordinate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.1.215 (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This section also starts off by saying "the current ice age" and ends with "we are no longer in an ice age - it ended 10,000 years ago.... but, there is still glacial ice covering Greenland and the poles.." I'm paraphrasing, but this is contradictory. We ARE obviously still at the end of our current ice age. This paragraph is clearly opinion meant to sway people into believing in climate change, and not scientific evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.120.174 (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, also in #Negative_feedback_processes the last paragraph about the Nature Geoscience article, it seems to use 'ice age' when it should use 'glaciation'. It also says "...have predicted that the next ice age would usually begin within 1,500 years" - this has got to be wrong; if glaciations happen for 50k years every 100k years, the next one should start about 40k years into the future, not 1.5k years nor 15k years. Even worse if they really mean 'ice age'. 75.101.22.253 (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is what happens when different editors mix up appraisals and statements that were made several decades apart, or which rely ultimately on different strata of scientific understanding which are that far apart, and on different models. And when data gleaned from popular books, magazines and original specialized scientific work get mixed up. Few geophysicists active today (or over the last forty years) would say that the next glaciation is likely to happen in 2.000 years time or anything like that; current understanding is more in the realm of at least 40k years into the future, perhaps considerably longer (see Milankovich cycles).

Also, there's been a general shift in the view of how frequent major ice ages are. They used to be seen as very much the exception; a few decades back scientific opinion was that before the very last million of years you had to go back almost 400 million years to find another ice age. But with more knowledge of stratigraphy and paleoatmospheric studies, it's swinging towards a view where ice ages (groups of glaciations and interglacials) are a steadily recurring thing and may have happened a couple of times even in the Cenozoic era. Having a climate like today's mediterranean even in the polar regions is not seen as "the normal thing" over the course of the last 500 million years anymore, though it pretty much was a few decades ago. Strausszek (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

is that a fact

In 1742 Pierre Martel (1706–1767), an engineer and geographer living in Geneva, visited the valley of Chamonix in the Alps of Savoy. Two years later he published an account of his journey. He reported that the inhabitants of that valley attributed the dispersal of erratic boulders to the fact that the glaciers had once extended much farther.

I'm uneasy with the fact that (and not only because I dislike that phrase in general). To us it's a fact, but to Martel wasn't it a hypothesis? Did the locals believe in bigger glaciers on other grounds, or only ad hoc to explain the erratics? If people have indeed lived in the valley long enough to see the glaciers retreat, they could attribute the boulders to a tradition that the glaciers had been bigger. —Tamfang (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

When is next ice age?

Why does this article fail to estimate when the next ice age will begin? Surely the plethora of sophisticated climate models can determine something which has occurred with such predictable regularity throughout the ages.

Obama science advisor John Holdren says the next ice age would have already begun except that it is being offset by man-made global warming.John Holdren Discusses Ice Age (Is a youtube video of someone actually saying something considered a "reliable source" that someone said something? It would seem to be the most reliable source of all.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.238.95 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If you read the article you'll find out we're in an ice age right now and we have been in it for over 2 million years. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine. The next "glacial period" then. When do the omniscient climate models predict the beginning of the next "glacial period", when global temperatures relatively rapidly fall 7 degrees or so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.238.95 (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does this article fail to estimate when the next ice age will begin? - the answer is, you're a dork, because the article already does what you want: see the section Ice_age#Glacials_and_interglacials. Also, JH doesn't say what you think he said William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Candidate for FAC?

A leading expert, Lorraine Lisiecki describes this article on her web site at [1] as "an excellent, easy-to-read introduction to the study of ice ages". Maybe someone who has contributed substantially could take it to FAC. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Dates

Subject says it all. Dates. More of them. Dates on lines on maps. More maps, showing dates. Dates in text. Sections devoted to dates. Dates in tables. Per-country dates. Dates. Dates. Dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.3.246 (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/flueckiger/publications/epica04nat.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140416132256/http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~avf5/teaching/Files_pdf/Ruddiman2003.pdf to http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~avf5/teaching/Files_pdf/Ruddiman2003.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.universitetsforlaget.no/boker/realfagogit/biologi_geologi_og_miljoefag/katalog?productId=674197
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022085754/http://www.moraymo.us/uplift_overview.php to http://www.moraymo.us/uplift_overview.php

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've seen reports in the press, but nothing credible. Refs? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

[2]: doesn't mention ice ages. Indeed, says nothing about climate at all. Also, is from 2014, so not even new. [3] 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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

typo

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

To correct three major errors in the preceding statement: Mammals have been around for more than 160 million years [4] considering that marsupials preceded placental mammals. The Chicxulub event in the Yucatan [5] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. It is safer to use a true photograph of a globe with the axis tilted correctly and the light placed correctly as if it were the sun, or to generate the image in 3D using a proper 3D CAD system. ClarkoEye (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2019

Grammar error in the introduction: "..., with both climatic pulses are being part of..." Schlechter Verlierer (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Global warming

As a layman, there are several points I don't understand. If we are living in an ice age right now due to the definition of pole glaciation and we don't really understand how ice ages happen, why are the temperature rises and melting such a problem? Isn't it supposed to happen anyway? I understand human-induced changes are considered bad, but the Earth will leave the ice age at some point one way or another. While trying to preserve the current state, shouldn't we also focussing on techniques that deal with the inevitable future? There have been eras of Earth where it was considerably warmer than today and other species better adapted to the environment populated the planet. If humans aren't capable of coping with the changes, they won't last till the death of the Sun. Yet we are panicking when we were always supposed to panic. I'm just trying to understand it from an objective point of view. Why hasn't this thought come up in media? --94.134.89.227 (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2019

change The last cold episode the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. to The last cold episode of the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. Rani2015 (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 14:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Ice Age definition

The introductory section defines ice age as a period in which icecaps are present at the poles (typically separated by millions of years) and distinguishes this from pulses of glaciation. This is inconsistent with the last sentence of the introduction which states "The amount of heat trapping gases emitted into Earth's Oceans and atmosphere will prevent the next ice age, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years...". This is because the referenced articles use the term ice age in the colloquial sense meaning glacial period. I suggest changing the quoted sentence to "The amount of heat trapping gases emitted into Earth's Oceans and atmosphere will prevent the next glacial period, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years..."Petradelta (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The definition is "In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres." This is inconsistent with the source cited, which gives no page number but the summary implies that ice ages are fluctuations in glaciation within a period when there are extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres. Another definition is when there is any extenisive glaciation, according to which we are in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, which started 33.9 million years ago. I doubt whether there is any widely agreed definition. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be an added article on the issue of minor ice ages. For example see Little Ice Age. It seems that this period is of a lower, subordinate class of temperature changes than true ice ages.Dogru144 (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Surely warmer oceans leading to more snowfall belongs under negative feedback rather than positive feedback.

Surely warmer oceans leading to more snowfall belongs under negative feedback rather than positive feedback.

Also, the positive feedback section should explicitly mention the release of methane from melting frozen tundra.

Also, the destruction of forests by ice has an element of negative feedback to it, because it reduces the amount of trees pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. MathewMunro (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

List needed

There needs to be a list of known ice ages.Dogru144 (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have added a link to Timeline of glaciation which covers this. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2020

In the intro "heat trapping" should be hyphenated: "The amount of heat trapping gases emitted into Earth's oceans". 82.132.226.148 (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. I have made the change to the article's text. GeoWriter (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Ice Age Causes unrelated entry

I don't know how to insert this into the talk, but under "causes" for the Ice Age is stuff talking about global warming and then a subsection talking about human relations to global warming. This article is about ice age and that area is for causes of ice ages. It is not about global warming so that information should be removed from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.89.106 (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree and have deleted the section on human induced warming. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding as of how it will occur

So I will add a paragraph of how ice ages are formed, and if you can, please update it by adding some citations, because I don't know how to, and i never did one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua's Number9 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks for your contribution, but you need to learn referencing in order to edit Wikipedia. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Confused lead

The lead confuses different definitions of an ice age. It starts by referring to the "presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers", which implies two different definitions. By the first, the presence of ice sheets, we are in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, which started when the Antarctic started to freeze 33.9 million years ago. The other definition of expansion of ice sheets is vague and can operate over several different timescales. A Greenhouse Earth is defined as one with no glaciers, which is nonsense. It is a period with no ice on the planet, as defined at [6]. The article then defines it as the Quaternary glaciation of the last 2.6 million years, which is one common definition. However, Joshua's Number9 has now introduced another definition, the fluctuations due to Milankovitch cycles, which operate over thousands of years. The article should clarify that ice age is a popular term which has no fixed definition. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate external link in the "External links" section?

Hello,

I would appreciate if someone would review the external link added in this edit. Is it an appropriate external link to include on this page? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

Please accept me for editting this page for add sources Araucarioxylon (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

ok Araucarioxylon (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Legends and Myth

Hello. I was curious why this article is unlike other articles with a Legends and Myths and Popular Culture or something similar reference? For example, it is believed that in many ancient myths, they talk about a great freeze, and even a migration as a result. Would be interesting to see a consolidation here.Rosengarten Zu Worms (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that would be more within the scope of Last glacial period. This article deals with ice ages throughout geologic time, as a physical phenomenon, and there were no humans around to witness the great majority of them. But human legends possible tied to the last glacial period seems like an appropriate topic for a section there. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi Protect

Does this need to be semi-protected? Aem 15:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)