Jump to content

Talk:Glacial history of Minnesota

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categories

[edit]

This article should be placed in the proper categories and perhaps in some WikiProjects so that it might get some attention. ~ UBeR 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

This article desperately needs references, some statements referenced on the Minnesota or Geology_of_Minnesota pages could be used here. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 04:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glacial History of Minnesota

[edit]

The Laurentian Mts. are the continental divide in norther Mi. That means that glaciers on the Northern side of the divide had to come up hill to push to the South. Theoretically this could happen if the glacier was significantly deeper, hence heavier north of divide. Is there evidence of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.228.197.205 (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I know this comment was added ages ago and I don't know about this area but I just can't resist to say the only thing that really matters is the surface slope of the ice. There is a lot of nonsense spoken about glaciers not flowing uphill. They do this all the time, it is not in any way unusual. Polargeo (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The continental ice sheets did not flow "uphill". Because they were kilometers thick, the ice sheet overflowed and submerged the hills that were lower in elevation then the surface of the ice sheet. This is the same as floodwaters overflowing a levee because the elevation of the floodwaters in a river is higher than the elevation of the levee along its banks.Paul H. (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mostly right, that is a good way to think of it. However, in this case the base of the ice sheet can definitely still flow (move) uphill if that is the way it needs to go, at a speed that can sometimes be very similar to the surface speed (even if the surface is a km or two away). I work on ice sheet flow as a research glaciologist, on Antarctic ice 2+ km thick. An ice sheet cannot be thought of with normal everyday experience Polargeo (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could explain this with an everyday metaphor. A more intuitive way of thinking of it could be to think of another fluid: water. There are two main forces: the weight of the water, and the pressure. Even if you hold a hose up straight up, the water will flow out of it, because the pressure of the water is overwhelming the weight of the water. Same deal with a glacier: if the pressure provided by the ice behind the bump is greater than the force required to go up and over a bump, it will move on. Awickert (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Minnesota?

[edit]

Why only Minnesota? It seems like some POV. <Why is there no article about other states/provinces? Is the glacial history of Minnesota unique, or is it just that nobody wrote the other ones. --CyclePat (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's written about Minnesota and nobody wrote anything about anywhere else. If you want to expand its geographic horizons, I suggest writing about the glacial history of other provinces/states and merge/rename; please AGF and hold the POV accusations. Awickert (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a question of scope, not POV. The scope of the article is the glacial history of the state, not a more general glacial history of the region, nation, North America, or world, or a history of a specific glacial period. It is not clear why that scope may implicate a policy against point of view (if that was the intent of the question). Kablammo (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kablamo and Awickert, I've striken out part of my comment regarding the POV. I agree with Awickert that it's much more peaceful and pleasant to keep a positive tone. Hence, I've also added a question, at the top of this thread, which Awickert and I have discussed on his talk page. Thank you and I look forward to working together on this matter. I particullary hope we can agree that this is likely something that should be explained within the article. Best regards to everyone. --CyclePat (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought: perhaps there could be something on how the glacial history of Minnesota fits into that of the larger region. I believe Kablamo is the main writer of the page, so I'd appreciate his thoughts before doing anything. Awickert (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have very few edits here; Uber wrote this article.
I wrote most of Geology of Minnesota which is really a survey or overview. The detailed geology of the state should be handled by other articles, such as Driftless area (covering multiple states) and Duluth Complex (which involves only Minnesota because that's the only place it's located). This article could be one such in-depth article, as could a broader article on (for example) the Wisconsin glaciation in North America. Kablammo (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we propossing something for this article or is this the scope, the status quo, we want to take/keep? --CyclePat (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've been wondering why there is a "Glacial History of Minnesota" but not a "Glacial History of the US". While I have nothing against Minnesota, it seems as if there isn't enough knowledge to write a country-wide, or even continent-wide, article, which is quite perplexing (moreso because the articles about the US glaciations are so sketchy, though that's another story).85.243.213.67 (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)SI[reply]
I guess no one has gotten around to it. Geel free to register and start that article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I wrote this article because it didn't exist before and because I figured I'd share some knowledge with the world. I did not do this to slight anybody else or any other region. If you have good knowledge of the glacial history of other parts of the world, I suggest also making an article for that. I figured this would be a good place to start. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you are looking for a broader topic, for example a discussion of glaciation for North America, I've done very rough work, which you can find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBeR/Glacial_history_of_North_America if you would like to build off of it. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Glacial history of Minnesota/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated as B based on the criteria. Constitutes original research; need sources.

Last edited at 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glacial history of Minnesota. 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:

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) 14:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glacial history of Minnesota. 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:

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) 05:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glacial history of Minnesota. 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:

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) 05:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glacial_history_of_Minnesota&oldid=1202305937"