Talk:Ice core

message: This article did a great job at providing information that was relevant to understanding what ice cores are. While reading through this article, it does not just briefly state what exactly an ice core proxy data collection method is, but goes through the ways in which to explain how the drilling process actually occurs during this method. On the other hand, I do believe that this article provides plenty of information on this subject as well as subject matter that may not be understood by most of the general public, although I did see where the author of the article provided a link so that a reader could better understand the definition of the said word. As  a student that is in a global climate change class, I would say that it was easy for me to understand the article but as I said before the general public may not be able to understand it. This article also does a great job at explaining the many strengths that are associated when it comes to ice core data, but the only negative that it given here is how it could be contaminated. I feel like there could be more research about possible weaknesses about drilling ice cores. I also think it would be important for the article to include the direction in which ice core research is going and the future that comes along with it as well. While looking at this article I also noticed that many of the sources are at least 8 if not 10 years old. I also even noticed a source that was way "out of date" and was from the 1980s. With that I am not stating that the material that is presented from that article is not good enough for this article, but I do believe that science is always changing so the articles and references that are associated with this page should be updated and checked more frequently in order to make sure the information that is presented is truly reliable. The one article that I included for a future reference is an article that talks about the future about where ice core drilling is going. At the beginning of this possible future reference, it mentions some basic information on the process of ice core drilling that could be used in order to make sure that the information that is presented in the article is up to date. 
Alexwheeler711
Adding a timestamp so this will archive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating sources as well as providing further information

message: I plan to mark this as a British English article, using .  If there are any objections, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, per this old diff ("modelling"). --John (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit worried this made it onto the main page with a mixed approach to spelling. I think it's all fixed now. --John (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks for taking care of the errors.  I'm lived for decades on both sides of the Atlantic so my version of English is a bit corrupted -- I appreciate the help.  A couple of comments on particular fixes: I am pretty sure "sulphuric" is the BrEng version, and "sulfuric" is AmEng; and "-ize" endings are not just AmEng, so it would OK to leave them alone -- they are Oxford spellings (e.g. you changed "synchronize" to "synchronise"). Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also lived on both sides of the Atlantic so I sympathise. You are right on -iz versus -is and it would be ok to change those back if there is evidence the article was originally in Oxford spelling; remember, we are not supposed to change the spelling randomly per MOS:RETAIN. Re the chemical; "sulfuric" is the preferred spelling in modern British English (eg this RSC page) and on Wikipedia we use WP:ALUM which recommends aluminium-sulfur-caesium as the spellings of the three elements which historically differed in spelling. --John (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark as British English? 

message: Since we have articles such as 1937 Fox vault fire, or 1967 MGM vault fire, should we mention 22,000 years of history evaporates after freezer failure melts Arctic ice cores? prokaryotes (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about this.  If more cores had been lost, it would make a better case for including it, but in fact they only had cores from five holes, and only ten percent of those were lost.  There isn't much in the article about core storage facilities at the moment -- there's not a great deal to say about them beyond what's in the article now -- so I think saying "if the refrigeration fails the cores will melt" might be a little unbalanced.  I think Langway has a couple of articles in the 1970s about early core storage facilities; I'll have a look and see if there is more detail that could be added from those, though if I remember correctly he really just said "it's a refrigerated room" and added a list of what was stored there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Ice core data lost

message: By the way, there is a featured image of an ice core.  Seems a little odd that it isn't included in the ice core article.  I'm not going to try and add it, but I thought I would mention it in case anyone else thinks there is a good place for it.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the picture currently in the visual analysis section instead because there was a little more that could be said about it, making it a bit more interesting for the reader.  I don't have strong feelings about it either way, though, if someone wants to subsitute the image (and change the caption appropriately). Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice core image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ice core. 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/20170504192232/http://icecores.org/icecores/drilling.shtml to http://icecores.org/icecores/drilling.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161118142033/http://icecores.org/docs/Langway_2008_Early_polar_ice_cores.pdf to http://icecores.org/docs/Langway_2008_Early_polar_ice_cores.pdf
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) 02:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Wasn't there data retrieved that correlates in time with the processing of Lead in the Roman empire? What about ending the additive of Pb to gasoline? User:ScotXWt@lk 08:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead (Pb) in the atmosphere dated back to Roman lead industry 

message: AFAIK a very narrow band if Iridium was measured; this correlates in time with the Yucatan impact event. Would be nice to have that in the article as well. User:ScotXWt@lk 08:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iridium band which correlates with Chicxulub crater 

message: Just wondering if the following issue should be included on the page, as it currently isn't. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/the-mystery-of-the-offset-chronologies-tree-rings-and-the-volcanic-record-of-the-1st-millennium/ Oathed (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  6-7y offset with tree ring dating?