Talk:2006 North American heat wave

2006 North American heat wave was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 9, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

Weather: General Low‑importance

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

European Heatwave

Should there be another article about the European heat wave of July 2006, as average maximum temperatures for this month are most likely to break some all-time records. No single day has been colder than 25°C in north-eastern Belgium for instance and on wednesday july 19th 2006, the predicted maximum temperature for the Belgian province of Limbourg will be 37°C (all time record : 37.8°C) Perhaps someone should look into it. The Belgian national heat wave alert has been re-engaged for the second time this season (not once in 2005) and for the third time in the north eastern province of Limbourg. Also France is experiencing 30°C+ virtually continiously throughout July. ==81.83.186.203 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American Heat Wave

I would cut this into 3 pieces, as there was a notable cooling spell following Heat Wave #1 on the east coast. Have 1 be the first Midwest-East heat wave in mid-July, 2 be the West heat wave in the interim, and 3 be the East heat wave in early August.

Along with the comments above regarding Europe, I could only find (English) reporting on US sources about the heat, however I'll bet it has in impact in Mexico, possibly Canada. I'd support changing the name of the article if other sources are found. Castellanet 22:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has also had a connection with the Great Lakes-Atlantic Coast derecho (July 17-18) and the St. Louis derecho (no article yet) (July 19). There have been heat records broken across Canada as well; not sure about Mexico or the Caribbean. North American Heat Wave of 2006 sounds better. CrazyC83 02:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add cites and rename, as soon as we have sources, change the name. Castellanet 07:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it must be renamed North American Heat Wave, because Toronto, Windsor, Ottawa, Gatineau, Montreal, Winnipeg, Regina, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Hamilton, North Bay, London and Quebec City were over 30 Celsius, even well above that, particularly in southern Ontario. I would say at least half of the populated zone of Canada got the heatwave, and I may not forget also that even Edmonton, Calgary and parts of B.C had it before us that steamy heat.--JForget 20:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Mexico, as there wasn't much information about it, but Canada doesn't seem to be experiencing this heat wave on the scale of the United States. Toronto, and the rest of Southern Ontario are on some level, though. Toronto has issued some heat alerts this summer, but most of the other cities have been generally normal. Montreal did experience some hot days, but nothing consecutive for several days. ♠ SG →Talk 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My city, St. Catharines, Ontario, experienced record temperatures today. The temperature is at about 110 Fahrenheit right now I believe. Canada IS INDEED being affected by this North American heat wave. --Matt0401 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all who helped add the Canada section and move the name to the much preferrable, North American heat wave. Kudos. Castellanet 21:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Mexico, they too can experience heat waves but since it is normallly very hot (in most regions) during the spring and monsoonal summer season, it would only be declared a heat wave if it was exceptional. Maybe someone can get data on this before reaching that conclusion. It has been hotter than usual in much of texas, Arizona, SoCal so its likely that at least northern Mexico has been too. Canada has had recent heat waves of greater magintude, Ontario & east in June/jul 2005 and BC/Alberta in Jul/Aug 2003 but this one appears to cover a wider area (or at least comparable to '05)

Cut Klinenberg research?

Cut from intro:

Although relatively little reporting is made about extraordinarily hot conditions, heat waves are responsible for more deaths annually than any other natural disaster.^[1]

If this is meant to advocate for the global warming theory and the Kyoto Protocol, it has no place in this article.

Besides, other sources blame cold weather for more deaths than hot weather, so if you want to write about this dispute please include both sides.

But please not here, let's find a better place to discuss causes of Talk:Weather-related_deaths. --Uncle Ed 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the concern, but the inclusion of the fact deleted has nothing to do with global warming advocacy. Rather, these deaths occur despite lack of general public knowledge about it. Sort of like how the film Jaws has made everyone terrified of shark attacks, but in reality the drive to the beach was more dangerous, except you have car commercials reinforcing how fun that was. Consider comments made here. Let's edit to ensure NPOV, but not at the exclusion of known facts. The inclusion of the deleted fact is directly germane to heat waves, the current heat wave. Let's exclude statements about global warming, not scholarship on heat waves. What do you propose? Thanks. Castellanet 20:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your gets proportionately little coverage as a natural disaster comment at "Candidates". Please read my notes at Talk:Weather-related deaths, which are now complete (at least that's all I have time for today), and then let's talk.

In any case, I'm on the 1RR bandwagon so if you undo my "move to talk" I won't revert. But I'd rather talk first. --Uncle Ed 20:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I guess I'm on a 0RR bandwagon (it's lonely, so far). I responded (I'm still eating lunch, then back to work!). I'll wait or defer. Castellanet 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously global warming --proof conclusive!!! Dogru144 05:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Klinenberg, Eric. (2002). Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Recentism?

I hate to be a wet blanket, but is this really more significant than any other summer heat wave the weather people talk about? Maybe time will lend more perspective, but from the article and the sources this doesn't look to be in the same category as other weather disasters. Friday (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a meteorologist and I can't assess current conditions scientifically, but in defense of the article I would say that heat waves really are a hugely underappreciated form of natural disaster.--Pharos 23:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that's a reason to improve heat wave, not a statement supporting the existence of this article, right? Friday (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's the worst heat wave since records were started - I'll have to find a citation to add that to the article though :-) To me, it is one of many indications of a global warming crisis and is both notable and verifiable. Brian 00:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

If that's true, I see no problem at all. But honestly I can't tell- people die from the heat every summer. To compare, the Chicago heat wave saw 600 people die in one city alone. This article talks about 22 deaths across 10 states- not remotely in the same category. The perspective of more time will help us see how big a deal this is, or is not. Friday (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friday - You've hit on the very point, in Chicago the 600 deaths weren't reported at the time. This time, the time is now, there are likely far more than 22. If WP editors scour available sources, as was done with Hurricane Katrina, we would discover more. Castellanet 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper, so we have plenty of space for every little heat wave that comes along. Maybe someone would like to consolidate them at some point int a Historical heat waves or List of major heat waves article. One way to build a big article is to divide a topic into a lot of small articles. Then, when those are stable, combine them. If the sum is manageable, turn the little ones into redirects. Otherwise, use the {{main}} template to let the summary article link to the parts. (BTW, I think "main" should be called "section", but that's another matter.) --Uncle Ed 14:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With about 100 deaths in California, and the blackouts in Saint Louis and New York City, I think that this heat wave is definitely worthy of an article now.bob rulz 07:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an article to deal with these bouts of oppressive heat that seem to occur regularly. Please help me edit it. Go to Summer MPS 14:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have added weather issues as an example in the Wikipedia:Recentism article. Feel free to edit. MPS 14:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the front page of the NYT, 100s of other papers and now Wikipedia is not enough to satisfy. Is it because most of the people who died were poor, and therefore are not newsworthy? Or are victims morally culpable for lack of air conditioning? Or more seriously, do we somehow know a priori that people die from heat without documenting? In short, I appreciate that this story can legitimately be criticised for supposed recentism, but give reasons, and if based on empirical observations, provide citation to reliable sources. Then we can talk.Castellanet 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? bob rulz 02:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castellanet... I am not saying this heat wave is not noteworthy; I am saying that wikipedia doesn't have articles on the great heat wave of 1856. What about all those poor people?? My point is that recentism isn't bad; it just is. Wikipedia tends to focus on recent events, and if it's not on the internet, it doesn't exist. this article should stay, just as I believe the Jennifer Wilbanks article should stay. Not necc because it is important, but because it was reported. MPS 19:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to bob rulz, my indentation was off, I was responding to MPS. Thanks to MPS for the response. I understand better now, but I think you underplay your hand: you are saying more than recentism just is, but instead that there is something wrong about it, perhaps not "bad", but maybe. The essay you began on recentism (as commentors say, not exactly a policy), is a criticism of certain articles, and I think a valid one. However, I disagree that a heat wave is simple documenting Summer (guilty of recentism) where a hurricane is somehow more newsworthy (not recentism). I think both are similar in that wind, rain and tide surge happen all the time, more so in Summer. Hurricanes are extreme forms. In the same way, heat happens every Summer, but heat waves are extreme forms. Both have serious consequences. I also appreciate that the Jennifer Wilbanks article democrotizes what is notable, and that this reflection of culture comes with the Wikipedia technology. I think we agree that recentism should not be added to the criteria for article deletion, leaving editors to arbitrate whether an article shoul be included based on this standard. Information should be available to all about all subjects anyone wants to author or read; the existing deletion guidelines and committee seem to work well on this point. As for this heat wave, this article provides cumulative documentation, not available elsewhere, which is why you'll know about this one and not the hypothetical (?) heat wave of 1856. We'll know much more about this one. I think even the folks at Long Now would approve.Castellanet 07:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this is a heat wave for huge area, no question. But to even it out many historical heat waves will have to be added, not done so far. 1934-1937 dust bowl years would definitely qualify... many of those records across the continent still stand today and were not broken during this recent intense heat.

Physical damage

The news sources in Shreveport have reported that water mains have ruptured, and other news outlets in the U.S. has reported that several roads, even concrete ones, etc. have cracked and buckled, creating Pot holes and damaging vehicles. If you live in a area that is affected by this heat wave, your news outlet will have more info. Martial Law 19:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Source info is the Shreveport Times, TV Channels 6,3,12, then there are the national news sources. Martial Law 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Recently, other news sources have indicated that the heat wave has ignited several wildfires. Martial Law 15:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Extreme weather

I thought we discussed this already:

Although comparatively little reporting is made about the health effects of extraordinarily hot conditions, heat waves are responsible for more deaths annually than other natural disasters, including lightning, rain, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.^[1]

I believe the science states that both the cold of winter and the heat of summer, is responsible for more deaths than "disasters" or extreme weather. Sticking this one sentence in the intro puts all the blame on heat.

This is odd, because I recall reading somewhere that cold kills more people than heat, anyway. Perhaps there is a dispute among weather researchers on this point, which we should describe, eh? --Uncle Ed 15:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up to 50,000 more people die in the UK during the winter months than in the summer ... [1]

Ed - add the text and reference to cold. The cite above doesn't say cold causes deaths, but that people die in cold months; in other words it doesn't have causation in the statement. Heat has causation, and there's scholarship behind the heat statement. I added qualification in the cite for the intro, feel free to add more.Castellanet 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general observation - even if made neutrally, doesn't belong in the intro to this specific heat wave. I'm going to move your observation down. --Uncle Ed 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. Although I think it is an interesting relevant fact that should be up front, I appreciate the compromise.Castellanet 20:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just as interested as you, but why not stop here? Why not on each Heat wave page?

Better yet, my dear colleague, how about only in Heat wave? And please write about cold snaps, too. I read somewhere long ago (and posted a quote at Talk:Weather-related deaths) about cold weather being as deadly as hot weather, or possibly more so. --Uncle Ed 20:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed - your recent additions to the front page have 3 errors. (1) The first sentence you write is misleading, since winter death rates may rise, but they are not caused by cold, and the source you cite supports the statement that heat causes more deaths than cold. (2) Your other source about hypothermia/hyperthermia in Alabama does not have a good link, i.e. there is no source. Also, neither of these cites is done in the same footnote form as the remainder of the article, leaving no cite information when the link is dead. (3) In your comments you note that none of the overall impact of heat waves is is relevant to the current heat waves, but to the contrary, the cites are taken from current news stories which discuss the phenomenon. In other words, I'm not injecting this point into the issue, but reflecting reporting done on the subject. By contrast, I do not think your cites are germane to the article since they are to debate global warming. Klinenberg was interviewed by NPR on this subject. There is no NPOV issue by simply reporting facts.

I think you are pushing a POV by adding a debate that is not necessary, and if you want to do it, I suggest adding a global warming section to the article. I have left the global warming issue out, and the trouble is you are debating a phantom, since there isn't any other global warming evidence in the article, though I am aware of the debate. Instead the article cites facts that are not in dispute. Moreover, while I see errors, I think debate is heathly, there's no harm here, and since I've previsouly reverted when you deleted my research, I am reluctant to delete your additions. Debate is part of Wikipedia, it is multilateral (not between two editors), so I leave it to others to decide about your recent additions. Castellanet 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "pushing a POV" to add well-reference, published points of view which contradict another POV already in an article. Please withdraw the that accusation. It's tantamount to a personal attack. See WP:NPA.

If the link is broken, we can fix it. I'm happy to follow any format you wish.

By relevant, perhaps I was unclear. I meant "specifically related to the current heat wave". Unless there is some debate in the media about the current heat wave being a sign (or consequence) of global warming. I saw a political cartoon in The Village Voice today referring to the current heat wave.

Either extreme weather of both heat and cold indisputedly cause about the same amount of deaths, or it's more one than another.

If you assert that there is no debate over this, please provide sources. Otherwise, slanting the article to assert only one POV (while omitting the opposing POV) would meet the definition of "pushing a POV" which you erroneously accuse me of.

I do not see debate as healthy, and I refuse to debate the "more hot, more cold or both the same" issue with you. That's for blogs and newsgroups. What I want the article to do is 'be neutral, i.e., conform to Wikipedia:NPOV by describing all major viewpoints fairly.

There are media articles which stress heat deaths. Those should stay in. There are other media articiles which stress both, or point out cold as killing more. Those should go in and stay in.

The reader can make up his mind which is more credible. Otherwise, the article is biased towards one POV, which (I'm sure you'll agree) violates web site policy. I've been here 5 years, the policy hasn't changed. Please understand it and comply with it, instead of accusing me of violations. --Uncle Ed 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A friend emailed me and said my post above "looked unfriendly." Sorry about that, the hot weather lately has me on edge. :-(

Here are some quotes relating the current heat wave:

Scientists: Killer Heat Waves Tied to Global Warming [2]
Some of the nation's top climate experts also believe the heat wave is caused at least partly by global climate change. [3]
The heat wave sweeping Europe is a direct consequence of the warming of the earth's atmosphere, experts say. "We are observing and suffering the first effects of global warming," Hervé Le Treut, meteorologist at the French Centre for Scientific Research told IPS. [4]
Scientists say although summer usually brings "heat waves," California's recent record high temperatures might be the result of global warming. [5]
Heat waves and global warming "are very strongly" connected, said Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis branch chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. [6]

Hope these help establish the context we've been discussing. Cheers! :-) --Uncle Ed 20:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph seems to have nothing to do with the article. Additionally, the citation conficted with the statement. If there is a desire to talk about weather and health effects more broadly, perhaps a new article should be created.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user:evstivers (talk • contribs).

Sorry if my comment was harsh, I was going quickly, I didn't at all mean anything personal. I appreciate your research and work to improve the article. I don't have time to competently work on this until much later today, at least. Thank you. Castellanet 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is crying out for a "global warming?" section, where "both sides" can air their views. This is not my focus though, so I'll again defer. Castellanet 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Klinenberg, Eric. (2002). Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. See also a related discussion of deaths due to cold.

Error

How did Phoenix set a record high on August 29? Should that be July 29. - SimonP 01:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heat wave over?

I think we can declare this heat wave over now, since cool weather has finally returned to the southern Plains. Anyone disagree? It's kind of hard to officially declare when a heat wave begins and ends. bob rulz 20:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I agree that the heat wave ended a while ago. I wasn't able to add stories information as it became available, so it is a matter of doing some research to look back now to early-mid August. Authoritative sources have stated that abnormal temps declined about that time. Castellanet 00:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any updates and articles you can find would be great. However, it's possible that it really only ended yesterday; for example, Dallas-Fort Worth had something like their 5th or 4th longest ever streak of 100-degree days end yesterday; however, it's possible that it ended earlier. It's hard to say since it simply didn't get much more news coverage after early August. bob rulz 03:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its finally over in the U.S. The Southern U.S. often get heatwaves until LATE September or mid October. Martial Law 04:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

I failed this GA due to the lack of sourcing for a few major areas. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"SF Chron Jul27" :
- [http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/27/WEATHERPAST.TMP The heat wave that was], S.F. Chronicle, [[July 27]], [[2006]] (75 California deaths + 25 non-Cal.)
- "Heat and solar radiation on average kill more U.S. residents each year than lightning, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods or earthquakes, said Karl Swanberg, a forecaster with the National Weather Service. Between 1936 and 1975, about 20,000 U.S. residents died of heat."

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]