This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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? |Canadian Dude 1| 23:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
I suggest merging November 2013 North American storm complex into this article. Geraldshields11 ( talk) 18:34, 12 February 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)
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)
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)
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:
- Mardus ( talk) 04:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What about Russia and northern Europe? 108.173.94.58 ( talk) 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Perhaps the title "2014 North American winter storm"? -- Abysmally ( talk) 15:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)).
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)
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)
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)
Surely there is a better image out there than that. 108.254.160.23 ( talk) 17:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
January 2014 winter storm is a disambiguation page. There were two separate storms.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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? |Canadian Dude 1| 23:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
I suggest merging November 2013 North American storm complex into this article. Geraldshields11 ( talk) 18:34, 12 February 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)
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)
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)
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:
- Mardus ( talk) 04:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What about Russia and northern Europe? 108.173.94.58 ( talk) 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Perhaps the title "2014 North American winter storm"? -- Abysmally ( talk) 15:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)).
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)
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)
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)
Surely there is a better image out there than that. 108.254.160.23 ( talk) 17:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
January 2014 winter storm is a disambiguation page. There were two separate storms.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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