Talk:2012 North American heat wave

Include Effects of global warming?

See Talk:Effects of global warming#Add wildfire references. 99.109.127.226 (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Include? -- No. 10stone5 (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh My Global Warming

If We pay Al Gore more money then it will all go. Lets destroy cities and move people in the countryside lets all in huts zero carbon footprint. I think that will stop the heat wave. Lets not have homes, eat meat or own cars that's bad for the planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.124.73 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Global warming is not a theory. It is a fact. The world is in fact much hotter than it was 50, 30, or even 10 years ago. Sea levels are higher and ocean salinity is lower. Ice cap coverage is less to an extreme degree. Severe storm incidence is higher. These are not theories up for debate or discussion, there are fact. Please take your corporately/politically driven bias elsewhere. And BTW nobody said anything about meat, homes, or cars being bad. It's overhunting, deforestation, and gasoline/coal/fossil fuels that are the problem.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  ^{Chat Me Up} 05:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Using citations appropriately?

"There’s a high level of agreement among scientists that global warming has made it more likely that heat waves of this magnitude will occur."

This is a verbatim quote copied and pasted from the cited NASA article. Whether it is public domain and legally copyable is a separate question from Plagiarism. A citation does at least point to the original author, but the more important issue is that this article does not itself support the statement as a fact, and is not necessarily a NPOV. There are no citations or statistics given in this wikipedia article, nor the NASA article, supporting this assertion. I'm not denying this statement to be true, I'm saying we can't just repeat what other people say and claim it as fact. Prove it. All we can rightfully say from the information here is that some guy at NASA said this, hence in my opinion it is only justified as a quote, and should be marked as such or have more citations to back it up. The second citation given refers to the march heat wave, and is relevant to global warming, but not really this article. Also, the second reference article does not say anything that justifies this "high level of agreement" statement.

In my opinion, this statement does not belong in this article at all, because this article refers to a specific event, which was not directly caused by global warming. This statement would be appropriate in the "global warming article," and the general "heat wave" article. However, I will not remove it simply based on "how I would do it."

If someone has appropriate citations to support this, please do so. I have been trying to come up with a way to reword it for a more NPOV but can't so far come up with a good way to do it, and I'm not even sure it's possible Hasoan (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Try actuallly reading the second citation. or try your find function. Look for "Global warming boosts the probability of really extreme events...like the March heat wave." The multiple source peer reviewed paper is here.

If plagarism were any kind of issue, we wouldn't have 10 million U. S. government images.

It's appropriate because one of the references is specific to this heat wave and it likely answers a question the article's readers might have. I think it would be appropriate in every heat wave article.

In Wikipedia there is no requirement of proof. The requirement is a verifiable source. If you demand proof you're trolling.Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 03:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I did completely read both citations (but not the new one yet.) I was only asking, although I did state my opinion but not as if I knew what was appropriate by community standards. I see the quote has been reworded, and I was not really sure if quotation marks were necessary or not. My other concern is hard to explain fully, but it just seemed slightly editorial to put that in this article. Thinking about it more, perhaps not. Sorry If I looked like I was trolling, I was really just unsure so I shared my point of view. Thanks for responding and providing more info. Hasoan (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by proof I indeed meant "verifiable source," which I feel has been better established by the 3rd citation. Thanks again. Hasoan (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In any event the use of the word "scientists" as authority on the interpretation of an event is in itself a fallacious argument to authority. Unless one can identify the scientists or the organization for which they work and find their expertise relevant (the opinion of physiologists or paleontologists on global warming would be no better than that of non-scientific laymen on the issue) and find them credible for their reputations and affiliations.

Thus "The Climatology Department of the Free University of Berlin" or "NASA" would probably be valid. Named scientists probably would be valid. Of course, anonymous authority is usually worthless; thus "Doctors recommend daily use of (brand name not shown) laxatives" would be suspect because the doctors are unnamed. Why would those doctors remain unnamed? Perhaps they are employed by the company that manufactures those laxatives. So are the tabloid stories such as "Scientists identify human face on Mars". Pbrower2a (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

1 in 1,594,323?

Mother Jones misquoted the NCDC. Their report says"

"During the June 2011-June 2012 period, each of the 13 consecutive months ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895-present record. The odds of this occurring randomly is 1 in 1,594,323." HERE

Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 04:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Has one heat wave ended and another begun?

We seem to have had a brief interval without locations in N. A. experiencing a heat wave. So we could have had one heat wave end and another begun. Or not as there is no universal definition of the term heat wave.

I think the best way to handle this might be to re-name the article Summer 2012 North American heat waves, and then the timeline section could be broken into sections. Comments? Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 23:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

One article per summer is enough--this is most analogous to 1988 North American drought in my mind. People remember it as one really hot summer (I was not yet two but my parents have stories)--if the heat was broken up by a few cool days that didn't really turn it into multiple discrete events. 169.231.53.116 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of two articles either, but not only is there a break in the heat, but there is some talk of a Bermuda High, which is a different mechanism, a different cause of the miserable weather. The is also a difference in the heat. High pressure over the continent gives dry weather, but a Bermuda high makes it humid in the east. Unless someone objects strenuously, I will rename it this weekend, and split the timeline section. Assuming I feel at least somewhat ambitious. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 05:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The heat wave did not end. It temporarily moved to the desert southwest. Then it moved back. During that time, there has been no days at all that SOMEWHERE under the dome's influence hasn't been at least 100 degrees. No new article.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  ^{Chat Me Up} 02:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW the Bermuda High is a steering mechanism for offshore storms. There cannot be "a" Bermuda High because there is only one thing which is called the Bermuda High. The Bermuda High moves slightly and can help channel hurricanes into, or away from, the Northeast or Mid-Atlantic staes, but otherwise does not significantly affect the weather patterns of the US. If you want to see the real cause of the heat wave (a heat dome), go here and click on the HDW-high layer. The heat dome is pretty hard to miss.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  ^{Chat Me Up} 04:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Temps over 100 in the Southwest mean nothing. The average high in Phoenix for the entire month of July is 106.2. The heat did move west, but was abnormal for only a short time. For example, Las Vegas was above average for only 4 or 5 days ending on July 11. The 12th was below average, and 13th-15th was abnormally cool. (put your cursor on the history section and scroll - it zooms to cover more dates - drag right or left to forward or back in time.) It was right through those dates that I don't think anywhere in the U. S. had a heat wave.

Here's a NOAA discussion how last year "Bermuda high pressure dominated the region with broad southwest flow aloft. This flow ushered in hot and humid air. a google search for "bermuda high heat wave" gets lots of hits for current dicussion.

The heat did not "move" back. At least not all the way to the east coast. On July 12 the Washington Post dicussed the previous heat wave caused by high pressure, and was predicting that a Bermuda high would cause one starting on the weekend. And the heat showed up on the 15th. Show me where it was abnormally hot on the 12- 14th. Truly abnormal, not just above average.

The Wall Street Journal also discusses the dry heat of the previous heat wave and the humidity they are now experiencing, the first heat wave from the dome of high pressure, and the second from the Bermuda high. And they say there were 4 heat waves.

As for the heat moving, go here and look at July 12, 13, and 14, one day at a time.

And forgive me for being cranky crankier when it's hot. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 07:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Relationship to global warming

"Although it is not definitively possible to say that global warming caused any specific weather event,

This is taken out of context and is the opposite of what the source means. It says:

In the past it was often stated that it simply was not possible to make an attribution statement about an individual weather or climate event. However, scientific thinking on this issue has moved on and now it is widely accepted that attribu­tion statements about individual weather or climate events are possible, provided proper account is taken of the probabilistic nature of attribution (Nature Publishing Group 2011)

So it's best just to go with the NASA statement. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 16:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Summer 2012 North American heat wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120712114947/http://abcnews.go.com:80/US/wireStory/nations-weather-16738371 to http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nations-weather-16738371#.T_u9cfU1_Rg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)