Talk:Last Glacial Period

message: Given the number of geographically-specific names (Wisconsinian and Vistula can be added to the list in the article), would it make sense to move the article to Ice Age or The Ice Age? 68.81.231.127 19:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The more general article at Ice age explains that the topic of this article, under its various local designations— none of them fully satisfactory overall— is merely the most recent glacial event. Some writers prefer to call it the Wisconsinian Glaciation, emphasizing, as the stages of geologic time like the Cretaceous "Maastrichtian" do, that "Wisconsin" is simply a place where the episode was recognized.  The "Würmian Glaciation" is also a familiar term in English-language discourse, though not Wikipedian, apparently (red-linked). (Wetman 08:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Würm glaciation seems to be more common, and redirects to this article. (SEWilco 14:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with "Last Ice Age", because everyone's heard of that whereas very few would know what "Wisconsin glaciation" refers to. EamonnPKeane 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to 'Ice Age'?

message: The present article is somewhat inconsistently expressed in years Before Christ. Years Before Present, with a "Present" permanently fixed at 1950, reflects the best normal practice, however. (Wetman 08:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says 1950 is the present? I assumed ybp meant 2000, or 2005, or 2006, and was worried what this article would look like in 10 or 20 years, then thought about the cleanup issues created by using such a contrived notation, but nevermind. Xaxafrad 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my lips: a "Present" permanently fixed at 1950, reflects the best normal practice. Any high school text will give you a first clue. --Wetman 05:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...and yet 1950 is gotten from the counting of years from AD. BP is like saying Time=((AD + Arbitrary date) - 10000) when you could just write Time = AD - 10000. AD is an accepted form of timeframe. Just because it has a religious connotation doesn't mean it doesn't warrant use - Iz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.25.0.206 (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: probably a mistake - note that this section is over 10 years old.  The lead uses "years ago" & probably we should stick with that. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "BC" or "BP"?

message: I found this page while looking for more info on a passing comment by Richard Dawkins (The Ancestor's Tale, pg 405): “... guessing that our ancestors, but not the chimpanzees’, passed through a genetic bottleneck not very long ago. The population was reduced to a small number, came close to going extinct, but just pulled through. There is evidence of a fierce bottleneck - perhaps down to a population of 15,000 some 70,000 years ago, caused by a six-year ‘volcanic winter’ followed by a thousand-year ice age. Like the children of Noah in the myth, we are all descended from this small population, and that is why we are so genetically uniform. Similar evidence, of even greater genetic uniformity, suggests that cheetahs passed through an even narrower bottleneck more recently, around the end of the last Ice Age.” Dawkins does not provide footnotes or endnotes, so I can't provide his sources, but the apparent contradiction with Wiki's summary is striking.
::You'll be interested to read Toba eruption and Volcanic winter. The Toba eruption seems like quite a specific culprit for our Genetic bottleneck: Toba catastrophe theory gives the details. --Wetman 12:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict with other data?

message: There is nothing in this article on
# The quite different character of the North American Cordellian Ice Sheeet.
# Patagonian Ice Sheet
# New Zealand Glaciers
# ... and other places that maybe matter less.
I'm not the one to attempt this summary. 134.121.64.253 02:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  other places 

message: The intro says, "The general glacial advance ... reached its maximum extent about 18,000 BCE."  Later the article says "The Tioga was the least severe ... of the Wisconsinan group and reached its greatest advance 20,000 years ago". If the Tioga was the least severe one would expect the maximum for the whole period would have been in the Tahoe or Tenaya periods more than 30,000 years ago. Either some change or some explanation required.
Secondly, the first sentence says, "The Wisconsin ... and Würm glaciation ... are the most recent glaciations ...". If (as it seems to me) this is one glaciation with many names (and several periods), shouldn't it read, "... is the most recent glaciation ...". Otherwise, if it is many glaciations, shouldn't it read, "The Wisconsin ... and Würm glaciations ..."? Nurg 03:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second point: no, they are different things. They are chronostratigraphic units and therefore can be different (but contemporary) regionally. There should in the ideal situation be separate articles about them. -- Woodwalker (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction 

message: I think the name of this article is a bit misleading. The last ice age is technically the Karoo Ice Age. Technically, again, we're still in an ice age, referred to as the Quaternary glaciation, host to the many familiar glacials and interglacials. I think it would be most prudent, so as not to confuse the readers, to rename the article to Last glacial or Last glacial period (prefer the latter). If you explain in the article that, colloquially, "ice age" is sometimes used to refer to the period ice advances, but "glacial" is a more correct term to use, then this will be less confusing for the reader. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What was "the name of this article" and what did "done this" do?  -- SEWilco (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry this reply is so late, I missed your edit. I believe the articled used to be titled "Last ice age," so I renamed it "Last glacial period," hence the "done this." I hope that clarifies things for you. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the article 

message: My local geologic history lacks 500,000 years of continental glaciation! I live in the Driftless Area! Yes, local history -- an exemption from glaciation that needs an explanation. I've tried to explain it. And the silly change in name remains silly. Karst topography is not found in drifted areas. Deep steep canyons are not found in drifted areas. --Ace Telephone (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, don't feel left out.  Take a vacation in the Black Hills or Arizona so you'll feel at home.  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Been there, done that. I'm just a little intense about the defense of my article, and the facts thereof (so are you).--Ace Telephone (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.32.33 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Not too far from here! ~ UBeR (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Driftless Area]] redux 

message: To get us started in the right direction, I changed "At the height of glaciation the Bering land bridge permitted migration of mammals and humans to North America from Siberia." to "At the height of glaciation the Bering land bridge permitted migration of mammals such as humans to North America from Siberia."  I'm sure some will be shocked to learn that humans are a type of mammal!
Maybe someone else can pick up where I left off and make this article into something to be proud of?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.32.33 (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a small mistake. No big deal. Feel free to continue improving the article though! We appreciate your edits. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's involve a little science, shall we? 

message: Anyone agree the heading image of the earth seen from space at the height of the last glaciation is not very helpful? I've been trying for fifteen minutes to match it to ordinary geography, that is to grasp from what angle it's supposed to show the earth. I supppose the N Atlantic is at the centre, but the rest? If northern Europe is the big hump on the top right, then what are the big white spots at right centre of the picture? Ethiopia and east Africa? That won't do: those ice sheets were relatively small in extent compared to those in the north. The edge outline of the ice to the left looks strange too. The lack of differentiation between non-glaciated continents and sea is a big drawback - both are shown as simply dark! I've seen much better pictures using the same idea, at the very least this one needs some captioning. Strausszek (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head image of the glaciated globe 

message: Did no non-mamillian land animals migrate over Bering? No birds, snakes, lizards, frogs, insects, opossums, freshwater fish? Did anything go the other way? For instance horses -- there are paleoequid fossils in South America, right? So the horses must have gone that way during interglacials to get established in Eurasia where the Cossacks could find them 65.46.169.246 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  migration of mammals such as humans 

message: Hi, this article has some substantial geologic errors. The meeting of the ice sheets did not make the Cypress Hills in Alberta, they date from the creation of the Rocky Mountains in the Mezozoic. Also, glaciers may have shaped the Great Lakes but the Lake Superior basin's been around a billion years and change.  c.f.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypress_Hills_(Canada)
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_superior — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwerneburg (talk • contribs) 03:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  geology errors 

message: The opening sentence says that the period ended 10,000 years ago. The fourth sentence of "Origin and Definition" says the period ended 10,500 BC, i.e. 12,500 years ago. Which is it? AndrewColeman2010 (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it wasn't overnight, whenever it was. I'm not sure either is right - one is unreferenced & the ref on the other deals only with Wisconsin. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency of end date for last glacial period 

message: The section on regional names currently suggests that the last ice age was known as the 'Devensian' in the British Isles and the Midlandian in Ireland. Certainly it is known as the Devensian in Great Britain (ie the UK minus Northern Ireland) but to extend that to the (often controversial - but let's not go there) British Isles - is that a step too far? I'm aware that the same event is referred to as the 'Midlandian' in the Republic of Ireland - is it also known as such in Northern Ireland or is it even referred to there by both names? Any NI Quaternary specialists wish to comment? cheers Geopersona (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midlandian or Devensian? 

message: It's been a ~year since I read a paper (can't find it).  But other locations included in that paper as follow.
Area                       	Name / Description
N.America (Pacific coast)  	Fraser
N.America (Rocky Mt.)      	Pinedale
N.America (Central)        	Wisconsinan
N.America (Sierra Nevada)  	Tahoe, Tenaya, & Tioga (3 glacial maximum in order of oldest to youngest)
Eastern Europe             	Valdai
Scandinavia/Central Europe 	Weichselian or Vistulian
British Isles              	Devensian
Ireland                    	Midlandian
European Alps              	Würm
Siberia                    	Zyryanka
Maghreb (North Africa)     	glaciated (didn't have a name)
Kilimanjaro                	glaciated till present (didn't have a name)
Mount Kenya & Ruwenzori Mt.	glaciated till present (didn't have a name)
Taiwan                     	repeated glaciations (didn't have a name)
Japanese Alps              	glaciated (didn't have a name)
Venezuela                  	Mérida
Chile                      	Llanquihue
Greenland                  	northwest glaciation (didn't have a name)
New Zealand                	Otira
Antarctica                 	Antarctic glaciation
Thanks, Marasama (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other locations 

message: The Milankovitch Cycles are the cause of glacial and interglacial periods.  There is nothing in this article about the cause of the last glacial period.  There is nothing about how Earth's orbit or axial tilt back then compares to now.
: Fair comment; I've linked, with a little text William M. Connolley (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of the last glacial period 

message: The article title is "Last glacial period". So far I am concerned in popular usage this means refers to the ice-ages, but the Last glacial period did also affected non-glaciated temperate and tropical areas, because this shouldn't the article include a section on how the glacial period effected "non-glaciated" parts of the globe (e.g. periglaciated areas, the oceans, the Sahahara, the Amazon rainforest etc.)? –Lappspira (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding the scope of the article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Last glacial period. 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/20080406040411/http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/h/i/79.htm to http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/h/i/79.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080808081441/https://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/landforms/auslform.htm to http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/landforms/auslform.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) 01:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Last glacial period. 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/20080227092356/http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjb/1996/167.pdf to http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjb/1996/167.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515055845/http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/romo/index.cfm to http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/romo/index.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606220702/http://dpc.dk/sw3590.asp to http://www.dpc.dk/sw3590.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606220604/http://dpc.dk/sw3551.asp to http://www.dpc.dk/sw3551.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130085619/http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercSOUTHAMERICA.html to http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercSOUTHAMERICA.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080203104337/http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_glacial.html to http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_glacial.html
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) 20:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi all.
The few maps already illustrating this article are great (artistic rendition, vegetation...), but I think it would be even better to have first a clear and simple map that shows only the coastlines then and now...
I'll look around for a source- ideally an svg.
MarmotteiNoZ 23:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic coastline map 

message: This section is tendentious and unreferenced. It states "The last glacial period is sometimes colloquially referred to as the "last ice age", though this use is incorrect because an ice age is a longer period of cold temperature in which year-round ice sheets are present near one or both poles." There is no such accepted distinction between the terms glacial period and ice age. In a search on Google Scholar of "last ice age" the first ten uses all (where it is clear from the abstract how the term is being used) refer to the last 100,000 years. The section needs re-writing. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If things are going to be changed I suggest we take a look into what scholarly sources say. Lappspira (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is obviously desirable, but scholarly sources will almost certainly disagree. The Oxford Dictionary of Geology and Earth Sciences defines ice ages as "periods when ice has accumulated at the poles and continents have been glaciated repeatedly". It says that there is no evidence of glaciation between the Permo-Carboniferous and the Quaternary. Other experts recognise additional ice ages such as the Late Cenozoic Ice Age. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin and definition section 

message: Hi folks. I just removed a few paragraphs at the start of "Overview" that were largely composed of original research. I think its attempt to give some rough global values to the level of cooling before going into regional detail was a good idea, but it wasn't implemented well. If included, perhaps it would be more appropriate in the lead. Massivefranklin (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, since the lead is required to be a [{WP:Summary]] of the body, if it isn't in the body it can't be summarized in the lead. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to "Overview" 

message: That first graphic is horrific. Not clear what it is, and too many abbreviations, and no clear key to colors. Just someone trying to show off about how techy they are.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.104.150 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree with this. It conveys very little information understandable to a nontechnical audience (and I suspect even a technical audience is scratching their heads...). I would consider removing it or replacing it with something better. Mz7 (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be best to replace it with the second graphic, File:Ice-core-isotope.png. This has unexplained terms, but not so many. In both, isotope ratios such as δO are proxies for temperature, but they are not explained and the temperatures they are proxies for are not spelled out. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me! If we could add a caption that explains that the symbols are temperature proxies, as well as maybe a citation to the source of the data (seems like the file description page has that information), that would go a long way to improve the article.  Mz7 (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't see any problem with the graphic there now, other than that it is unattributed. There's no information about where it came from, which we need to fully understand it.Philgoetz (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  First graphic 

message: So you could probably look this up in a bigger article, but what was the period before the ice age.  You know, since I'm doing some Wikipedia reading, I might like to know random things.FourLights (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is given in the first line: "occurred from the end of the Last Interglacial". It is also called the Eemian. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before the ice age