Talk:Quaternary glaciation

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)


 * Could please a real expert solve the contradictory times for the beginning of the pleistocene here versus that in the other special articles?? HJJHolm (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HJJHolm (talk • contribs)

Doesn't take an expert. The Pleistocene period doesn't cover the Holocene period which is the interglacial that we are now in. --24.24.135.203 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

... 09.02.07 suspect in section 'Records of prior glaciation' the 'Phanerozoic Climate Change' chart may be in error (the X axis millions of years ago period abreviations, N, Pg, K, J, Tr, P, C, D, S, O, Cm).

Within the Phanerozoic eon the three eras Cenezoic (periods: Neogene, Paleogene) Mesozoic (periods: Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic) and Paleozoic (periods: Permian, Devonian, Cambrian) the period sequence thus should go N, Pa, Cr, J, T, Pe, D, Ca with each being about a 50Ma span... 0 to 542Ma. Bhug (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * I am sorry but from what I have read on this subject the 3 million years ago there were forests on Antarctica here is a easy reference:


 * REDIRECT []


 * --OxAO (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Glaciation of Antarctica follows the separation of Antarctica and Australia with the widening of the ocean between the two continents. Before this separation, Antarctica and southern Australia (the latter in the upper-middle latitudes) were a zone of interchange between polar and non-polar air masses and even Antarctica when at the pole could not get permanently frozen. As the two small continents separated, strong and permanent ocean currents kept polar air locked into Antarctica while Australia became either temperate or tropical. Antarctica quit warming in the summer.

Although earlier events do not cause later events, further cooling of Antarctica until it glaciated follows the collision of India and Tibet into what was then south-central Asia (now central Asia. The giant and extremely high Himalayan Plateau was uplifted, and its silicate rocks were exposed to the rains. Carbon dioxide in the rain replaced the silica in what had been silicate rocks, sequestering carbon dioxide. Low levels of carbon dioxide coincide, as a rule, with cooler conditions worldwide. From then on, Antarctica got even colder and its ice cap expanded. Pbrower2a (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism
I noticed that this page was vandalized, by replacing small, subtle words in the page with ridiculous alternatives, including changing the "last 2.5 million years" to 2 days. I have undone the vandalism. Has this been a problem in the past? 67.11.3.168 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Southern Hemisphere Laurentide
Has evidence been found for Pleistocene glaciation on the scale of the Laurentide ice sheet in the Southern Hemisphere? I'm trying to understand why horses (Equus scotti) died out more or less simultaneously in N. America and S. America about 10,000 years ago. --Virgil H. Soule (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is very interesting to note that the rapid extinction of the megafauna of the Americas coincides with the arrival and spread of humans Quaternary_extinction_event at the end of the Pleistocene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzzl (talk • contribs) 13:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

lengthening glaciations
If our glacial periods are caused by ocean access to the arctic ocean then they are caused by tectonic placement.

Our lengthening glacial periods could be caused by the solar system exiting its cool period of orbit.

Then it becomes harder and harder for the oceans to pile enough ice on land masses to lower their depth enough to halt the circulation of the arctic which causes the glacial period.

Our current increase in ocean circulation is cooling the oceans,  causing desertification similar to that in glacial periods.

b. mcintyre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.176.221 (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fact vs. Theory
Why is this in here: Global warming has exacerbated the retreat of these glaciers ? This is a theory, not a fact... even if it is cited with a source. If this sentence is going to be in the introduction, I think it should say something like The theory of global warming has exacerbated the retreat of these glaciers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvog86 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's not warmer temperature, then what is it? With regards to your last sentence, theories do not cause ice retreat. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Recent studies show that albedo changes alone can increase melt. Soot from multiple sources (coal, nuclear test fallout from 900 above ground tests in the Russian north) has increased melting.  2. Mechanical action increases melt, similar to the effect of crushed ice vs cubed ice.  Storms and icebreakers increase mechanical melt effect in the seas.  Earthquakes and volcanic action under glaciers.  3. An increase in the transport of Arctic ice through the Fram strait into warmer waters has increased the melt rate of Arctic ice.  4. Finally the glacial detritus turnover rate lowers albedo of certain glaciers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.73.31.49 (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In any event, "exacerbate" is a derogatory synonym for "intensify", so NPOV is in doubt. Pbrower2a (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Ocean currents
I added the following to the "effects" section: Hey, I know it's true, and the effect is alluded to in several places in the article, but I am not an expert and I do not not have any refernces. Can an expert please refine this and add references? -Arch dude (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ocean currents
 * Thick glaciers were heavy enough to reach the sea bottom in several important areas, thus blocking the passage of ocean water and thereby affecting ocean currents. In addition to direct effects, this caused feedback effects as ocean currents contribute to global heat transfer.

Time scale
Why is there no clearly expressed time scale for this glacial period? When did it begin and when did it end? Kortoso (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed graph from "Atmospheric composition" section
I removed the "Co2 glacial cycles 800k" graph from "Atmospheric composition" section because the stratigraphic terminology used in it is grossly antiquated, obsolete, and now known to be quite meaningless as I discuss in the talk section for that figure. Before it can be used, this graph needs to be revised to remove the discredited terminology and have it replaced with the correct terminology. Paul H. (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Next glacial period
In the section about the next glacial period, very specific time frames are listed for the onset of the next glacial period: 50ka if if CO2 levels increase to 750 parts per million, 15ka if CO2 drops to 210 ppm. What are the sources for these figures? I added the citation needed tag because figures this specific are probably based on a paper, but not mentioned in the references in this section. Both figures would break the trend of the past 1 million years, and it seems to me they would cause the next glaciation to be out of sync with the Milankovic cycles, so I'm very interested in the source. Mzzl (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * These figures should be cited soon or deleted. I have looked for papers on this in the past, and they're very hard to find and very tentative. Pretty sure this section is misleading. Mujokan (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the most recent article I know, published January of this year . It says that when they selected only the models that most accurately tracked the previous ice ages, using the pre-industrial levels of CO2 of 280 ppm (a bit more than the 240 ppm of the interglacial 800,000 years ago which is the closest model to the present of recent ice ages) they predicted that the next ice ages should be 50,000 and 90,000 years from now (with a possibility of a slowly approaching ice age 20,000 years from now). While with 240 ppm then the next ice age would be as soon as 1500 years into the future. Then, with 500 Gt of emissions, not far off what we have already reached, we may already have enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make a difference to the ice sheets over thousands of years. If it reaches 1000 GT then the chance of an ice age in the next 100,000 years is notably reduced and with 1500 GT of emissions then it is very unlikely that we get an ice age in the next 100,000 years. That's because when you add a new pulse of CO2, it drops off rapidly at first, half gone in 50 years, only a quarter left after 250 years, 15% after thousands of years and long term half life is 35,000 years. You can read it in full under Nature's sharing initiative if you click on the link " published in the journal Nature" in the article in the Guardian here: Fossil fuel burning 'postponing next ice age' Robert Walker (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The next glacial period will likely coincide with the completion of the collision of Africa into Eurasia, with the Mediterranean and Black Seas eliminated (really transformed into a Himalaya-like range with much the same effect). Another possibility also arises with the collision of Australia into eastern Asia, with a similar great high plateau forming.

Antarctica seems to be relatively stable tectonic zone and moving very little. To get out of the glacial zone, much of it would have to be drawn northward in any direction until a significant part of it reaches the middle latitudes. But this is speculation dependent upon extrapolation of trends in tectonic drift... and extrapolation of any trend is suspect beyond the immediate future.Pbrower2a (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

General improvements
There hasn't been any changes to this article for a year and a half. I hope to make a number of changes - some may be large scale changes. If any contributors from the past have concerns let me know. Mark Buchanan (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is specific to Quaternary, and most of the action is going on in the Ice Age section. The best I think we can do (who aren't specialists in this field) is to keep this page free of nonsense, and to maintain links to the Ice Age page where needed. So, that's what I've done.--Zimriel (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Maximum thickness of the ice
What is the maximum thickness of the ice sheets during the Quaternary? Regardless of extent the ice sheets never seam to have grown thicker than four kilometres (2½ miles). Anyone who can verify this?

2015-01-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.113 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Serious work
Is That serious work or something else? Thats a very serious questions. A lot of writing about clima is more political orientieted or colourd than something else. So here we have in the hole article just a very few facts = references! Thats not serious. We shouldnt make it as al gore - just words and no real evidences and propre science. Facts is waht we need - not blabla. And b.t.w.: During the Quaternary Period, the total volume of land ice, sea level, and global temperature has fluctuated initially on 41,000- and more recently on 100,000-year time scales, as evidenced most clearly by ice cores for the past 800,000 years and marine sediment cores for the earlier period. Thats not a propre sentence as we lern it in school. 1. You cant compare different scales together. volume and temperature are very different scales! Dont compare that!!! 2. The sentence it too long and especialy unclear. Thats not very serious work. My english is the 3 language, you can write me the corrections. greatings --93.184.26.78 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Quaternary glaciation. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20031210132700/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov:80/Library/Giants/Milankovitch/ to http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Giants/Milankovitch/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

When the article does mention referenced material, they are adequate references, however, I do believe that there could be more text that is linked to other Wikipedia pages and or graphs. I found in the Discovery page it mentions “extensive field observations”, well, what field observations provide evidence that glaciers covered large parts of the world at a time? It also mentions that “maps of glacial features were compiled”, can we see a link to the maps? Many times in the description section it mentions, “extensive evidence”, but there are no links to them… Everything in the article seems to all connect to Quaternary Glaciation, and the article is written very neutrally, and everything is represented and discussed quite thoroughly. The links for the articles work, and there are some very nice “see also” links that help the reader understand the science and basic knowledge about glaciers. However, there are a few sections that could use some work, and do not have any citations at all, such as “Ocean Currents”. Otherwise, this is a nicely developing Wikipedia article, although, many of the sources used are somewhat older, however others are from 2015 and 2016. EmsenDK (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Quaternary glaciation. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070805083920/http://www.geo.ua.edu:80/intro03/ice.html to http://www.geo.ua.edu/intro03/ice.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070802015424/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16401 to http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16401
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080315020229/http://www.pgi.gov.pl:80/pgi_en/index.php?option=articles&task=viewarticle&artid=514&Itemid=3 to http://www.pgi.gov.pl/pgi_en/index.php?option=articles&task=viewarticle&artid=514&Itemid=3
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070802015451/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17104 to http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17104
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081201125659/http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_051216.html to http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_051216.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070805083920/http://www.geo.ua.edu:80/intro03/ice.html to http://www.geo.ua.edu/intro03/ice.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported by cites
The date given in statement "The retreat of glaciers since 1850 is largely a consequence of anthropogenic warming of the climate system during the period." is unsupported by either citation given for it. I propose an alternate cite be found, or the statement be reworded to "The current retreat of glaciers is largely a consequence of anthropogenic warming of the climate system." 2001:56A:F564:3500:1DED:7A0E:DD59:B8C (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi, I had a few notes on the article to improve it. From the discovery section, the introduction article it says, "The Quaternary glaciation was the first ice age to be demonstrated in geology, and proved that these were possible. This was done over the 1700s and 1800s CE. This start to a paragraph is pretty confusing since it wasn't explicit what the word 'these is referring to. Also, the records of prior glaciation section is informative, but doesn't seem to relate to the topic, a way to tie it in would help to make it seem less random.

PezNadia 20:16, 20 February 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PezNadia (talk • contribs)

Broken References & Potential citation issues
This article is neutrally written and draws information from a variety of diverse, relatively current, reliable sources. However, there are a few reference links that appear to be broken, or don't lead to the intended source. It appears that reference #13 should apply to the formation of lakes as a result of glaciation, but instead links to a glossary page for the USGS that includes a heading regarding a volcano hazards program. Reference #16 links to the main page for the American Geophysical Union, not a specific relevant page or the information cited. Reference #28 links to a general paleoclimatology data page, but I could not find the info cited here. Also, some sections appear to be lacking citations. There are no citations in the "Discovery" section, the pluvial lakes section, or the ocean currents section. After the heading of the first two aforementioned sections, there is a link to a main article. I'm not sure if this is a sufficient/generally accepted way to support claims made in a separate article, but those sections may benefit from outside sources so that it is more clear where exactly the claims made and the facts displayed are coming from. JocA1 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference/Additional Information
In the Ocean Currents section there is very limited content along with a lack of citations, but it seems that the section is trying to get at thermohaline circulation. NOAA has an article here which describes how sea ice, which proliferated during the quaternary glaciation, drives ocean currents. Here is another article which details the possible feedbacks of the THC. This brings me to another point, this article frequently mentions feedbacks, but presents incomplete information. Feedbacks are either positive or negative, and while some climate features have multiple feedback effects (e.g. water vapor) others, such as the ice-albedo feedback, are predictable and should be classified as positive or negative depending on the context. Thus, the statement on ice-albedo feedback should say that it is a positive feedback on cooling, because more ice will increase cooling through increased albedo. The same follows for CO2, as CO2 would rather be a negative feedback to cooling (or positive to warming). Also, with regard to CO2, a crucial natural mechanism for CO2 concentration change is silicate rock weathering, which is unmentioned by this article. Silicate rock weathering is sometimes referred to as a thermostat because it reacts negatively to both warming and cooling, keeping climate in check. However, both uplift and glacial movement increase weathering, which acts as a positive feedback to cooling by lowering CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Would appreciate any feedback on these comments before I attempt to edit. LMPrudh (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)LMPrudh

The article has great amount of information including an extensive list of reliable references about the general meaning of quaternary glaciation. As previously mentioned the introduction could use some additional information including direct links to the origins, discoveries, new data from recent studies or scientific experiments that would help expand on the subject of glacial studies /paleoclimatology. Here are some of the links I would suggest be added to this article: John Imbrie in the area of Discovery, as well as Louis Agassiz in the same area. Records of prior glaciation can be amplified by introducing some additional findings from: “What have we learned from paleoclimate simulations” by Harrison et al. see citation below. This journal includes information about initial paleoclimate modeling, the benefits of the current studies and how the reconstruction of different environments can be improved in the future. The description part of the article could benefit from using additional references. The journal “Late Quaternary glaciation and equilibrium line altitude variations of the McKinley Rive region, central Alaska Range” by Dortch et al. This article not only provides evidence of different moraine deposits, but it also it provides recent studies that help differentiate among the different glacier deposits within Alaska Range.

Harrison, Sandy P, Patrick J. Bartlein, and I C. Prentice. "What Have We Learnt from Palaeoclimate Simulations?" Journal of Quaternary Science. 31.4 (2016): 363-385. Print. DORTCH, JASON M, LEWIS A. OWEN, MARC W. CAFFEE, and PHIL BREASE. "Late Quaternary Glaciation and Equilibrium Line Altitude Variations of the Mckinley River Region, Central Alaska Range." Boreas. 39.2 (2010): 233-246. Print. Rauch.94 (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

General Review
The wording near the beginning of the article could be edited to be less confusing. The information under the "Effects" heading could use to be backed up by a reliable source, as there are several claims which are made about lakes that are not followed with any citation. Links 7, 13, and 16 do not lead to specific sources which back up any particular claim, but instead lead the user to a general page or homepage of the intended site. The majority of the rest, however, were accurate, unbiased sources which backed up the claims made in the body. The article does a good job of maintaining a neutral tone while giving enough detail for the reader to understand the material without being lost in a sea of unnecessary information. Jamesoneric (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Quaternary glaciation. 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/20081217075154/http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/OUTGOING/publications/joos03scope_proofs.pdf to http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/OUTGOING/publications/joos03scope_proofs.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221015154/http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/projects/geoweb/participants/dutch/VTrips/SandHills.HTM to http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/projects/geoweb/participants/dutch/VTrips/SandHills.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"Current Ice Age"
The Current Ice Age redirect was turned into a stub in May 2018, and (rightly) turned back into a redirect in June. However, the information added was lost. Apparently, it contained a suggestion for the early onset of glaciation as early as 33 Ma. Afaics, this is simply a question of definition of when the "Current Ice Age" is taken to have begun (is a tiny sliver of ice in the Antarctic enough, or do we need a major Antarctic ice sheet?), but information on a possible early glaciation 33 Ma should certainly be included here. --dab (𒁳) 06:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

German interlanguage link goes to wrong page
The German interlanguage link goes to Känozoisches Eiszeitalter. That is the German page for the Late Cenozoic Ice Age. The Late Cenozoic Ice Age began 33.9 million years ago and continues today. The Quaternary Glaciation is the last 2.58 million years of it.

The interlanguage link between the Quaternary Glaciation page and the Känozoisches Eiszeitalter page needs to be deleted. Then, a new interlanguage link needs to be created to link the Late Cenozoic Ice Age page to the Känozoisches Eiszeitalter page.

Here are the addresses for the two pages that need to be linked with an interlanguage link:

Late Cenozoic Ice Age (English page) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age

Late Cenozoic Ice Age (German page) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Känozoisches_Eiszeitalter

Appple (talk) 01:43, 01 October 2018 (UTC)

The CO2 level charts are grossly out of date. Modern and continuously updated charts are available from noaa.gov.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png Ocdncntx (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)