Talk:Mid-Piacenzian Warm Period

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Climate task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Mid-Piacenzian Warm Period is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pliocene Warm Period

There's an interesting discussion of this event here with quotes and links to many RS's. Good resource for expanding this section. I'll get back to it when time permits. Interesting topic, and pertinent to the AGW debate. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--- That is neither a discussion, nor a "good resource". It does not address the nature of any level of "debate" that may be going on in the scientific community, and it's nothing near objective. Please note the "verifiable" clause at the bottom of the talk page. That person's personal opinion blog should by no means be used to expand this section. Sinenox (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pls disregard the blogger's opinions, but he does have some interesting references to RS's. I should get back to this sometime.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a good resource for expanding this article. It is a lying, climate change denying piece of political propaganda by a non-scholarly blogger with zero familiarity with the subject and with bad-faith motivations. Such anti-intellectual rubbish has no place on any Wikipaedia article. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- What does 70N mean? I have heard of F, C, and K as measures of temperature.

   Is a correction required?     .... Novice User, not registered.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.250.193.219 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Critique

In general, this topic is a very interesting choice and can be expanded given the amount of research done in the area. Although the Pliocene topic has its own “Climate” subsection, having this separate topic is useful due to its ability to be compared to present and future climate expectations, in accordance to the references. Given this, perhaps a change in the topic title could be suggested.

1. The Lead section is very direct and clear and gets the reader interested in the topic. 2. The Onset section could use more (updated) information a couple more images, and the "West Antarctic Ice Sheet" section could be placed in the previous section. 3. The comparison to Future climate may have space for a lot more information, which is expected since the topic has not been reviewed since 2014. 4. The Setting statement seems biased by the one and only citation (which is not as reliable source as needed), and ideally we should avoid the usage of value statements such as setting the Eastern Siberia core which is called “exceptional”, while the content of the research with this core is not well explained. 5. Finally, the DOI references are correct, however the NASA links do not work anymore. 65Eq (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)65Eq[reply]

"Decreasing carbon dioxide levels during the late Pliocene..."

This article contains the phrase "Decreasing carbon dioxide levels during the late Pliocene," but can it be added to this article how and why CO2 levels decreased at that time? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting merger with Pliocene

I see no reason why the Pliocene's climate should merit its own separate article when this is not the case for any other epoch, many of which had far more remarkable, noteworthy, and/or unusual climates. The only particularly notable thing about it is that the Pliocene is often used as an analogue for future warming, but that also applies to the Middle Miocene Climatic Optimum, the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum, the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, the Early Toarcian Thermal Maximum, the Triassic-Jurassic Thermal Maximum, the Permian-Triassic Thermal Maximum, and the Emeishan Thermal Maximum, and a page about comparative palaeoclimatology between the present and various past epochs would be more substantive if that is the rationale for keeping the article on Pliocene climate separate from the article on the Pliocene. A separate article that's specifically about the Middle Pliocene Warm Interval, which is the part of the Pliocene that is usually compared to hypothetical future climates, might also be worthwhile. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Middle Pliocene

The title of this section is out of date. As of 2009 there is no Middle Pliocene. The Gelasian (previously Late Pliocene) was added to the Pleistocene and the subdivisions of Pliocene that are officially accepted are the Piacenzian (mid-Piacenzian Warm Period) and the Zanclean. This should be the mid-Piacenzian Warm Period. PastDr (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]