Talk:Thundersnow

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 9 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Micallen0713.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

severe thundersnow[edit]

should this phenomenon be included in the articleas well? 

BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WARNING
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LINCOLN IL
602 PM CST TUE FEB 11 2003

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN LINCOLN HAS ISSUED A

* SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WARNING FOR...
MARSHALL COUNTY IN CENTRAL ILLINOIS

* UNTIL 645 PM CST

* AT 602 PM CST...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED
A SEVERE THUNDERSTORM...WITH HEAVY SNOW... OVER SPARLAND...OR
ABOUT 6 MILES NORTHWEST OF LACON...MOVING EAST AT 65 MPH.

* THE SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WILL BE NEAR...
HENRY
LACON
VARNA
TOLUCA
WENONA

DAMAGING WINDS IN EXCESS OF 60 MPH WILL ACCOMPANY THIS DANGEROUS
STORM. GO TO A BASEMENT OR AN INTERIOR ROOM ON THE LOWEST FLOOR OF A
STURDY BUILDING. ABANDON CARS AND MOBILE HOMES IF YOU ARE IN THE
WARNED AREA.

REPORT SEVERE WEATHER OR ANY STORM DAMAGE TO YOUR LOCAL ESDA...OR THE
NEAREST LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY...FOR RELAY TO THE NATIONAL WEATHER
SERVICE. STAY TUNED FOR LATER STATEMENTS.
I would agree with adding this. --Bowser423 (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References in Pop Culture[edit]

  • I've seen thundersnow in Halifax, Canada several times in recent years. Dezzo 09:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yesterday (i live in a small town in kansas) We had thundersnow it wasreally quite strange. It was thundering and the power went out for a few seconds but it sleeting/snowing outside Suggested Addition to Thundersnow:

On a Personal Note (not for article addition)...[edit]

Thundersnow seems to follow me around the world. I witnessed the rare event in Munich in 1989, and then again two weeks ago during the 2006 nor-easter in central Maryland. Twice already in one lifetime, with 60+ more winters expected! EikwaR 05:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be a weather god. Ever read Hitchhiker's Guide? 71.196.233.110 (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen it multiple times, but it was pretty spooky the time I saw it! Snowing heavily as I was walking along through my uni's campus, then FLASH! And everyone on the street is looking around confused. Don't think I was the only one who had never seen this phenomenon before... I think this was in about Feb 2013. Sailor7sakura (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only 10 strikes a minute but[edit]

The lighting was GREEN and it lasted SIXTEEN HOURS! =) http://www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/storm101206.html Jskelly 05:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References shed greater light on topic[edit]

I found a reference that refuted the triple point theory in synoptically forced thundersnow. A study actually reveals it's most active in the comma head, which makes sense due to the frontogenesis that occurs within that part of an extratropical cyclone. References continue to be added. Who knows what else may not be correct. Thegreatdr 02:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-American example[edit]

Thundersnow occurred in the United Kingdom in January 2004. I don't know how common/rare it is in this country. 81.153.110.165 04:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thundersnow is very rare across most inland parts of the United Kingdom, and 28 January 2004 was a very unusual event. However, eastern coastal areas occasionally receive lake-effect thundersnow caused by cold northerly or easterly airflows passing over the comparitively warm North Sea. Western coastal areas can get similar lake-effect thundersnow generated over the Atlantic or Irish Sea in polar north-westerly airflows. However, even in the most prone areas, the frequency of thundersnow is typically no more than once every few seasons. Tws45 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 1, 2008: Englewood CO, ~21:30[edit]

I just went through an intense thundersnow, though there were only five lightning bolts in total. I doubt there were any ground strikes. Three of the bolts seemed to be almost directly overhead, but probably quite a ways up into the clouds. Something I noticed is that the thunder was long-lasting. In three cases the loudest part of the report lasted about five seconds. One bolt- which seemed to be the closest (and most intense by a large margin)- I recorded on my cell phone. It sounded like the primary report lasted about eight seconds. If I heard correctly, that would make mean the bolt was about two miles long extending away from my approximate location (really impossible to know). I had less than a second to start recording after a frighteningly intense flash of overhead light. I could hear echos- probably bouncing off of buildings up to several miles away- lasted out to about 17 seconds. Two kinds of snow were falling simultaneously- light flakes and round snow pellets pea-sized and smaller. Not hail, nor sleet. Soft. Accumulation was about an inch in half an hour. The temperature is hovering right around 32 degrees F and the weather report mentions a "freezing fog." 71.196.233.110 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was, in fact, a ground strike at a house at Pennsylvania and Floyd in Englewood tonight. No reported injuries, but you're right, the storm was intense. 76.25.245.5 (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool. I love Wikipedia. Is that what the emergency response was about? Very glad no one was hurt. 71.196.233.110 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've since found out that there were TWO ground strikes within a five-block radius, and one of those was near Gilpin & Girard. That one a tree, I hear, and was rather harmless though it burst some lightbulbs - nothing like the one that hit the house. Amazing that damage wasn't worse given how low the lightning appeared to be. 76.25.245.5 (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 10th, 2008: Lima, Ohio ~Between 1:30 and 1:50 AM[edit]

HOLY CRAP!!! They said that the Thundersnow occurred in Lima, Ohio. I live in Green, Ohio (near Akron and Cleveland,) and I heard it like it was right outside my house! (And I know what that's like!) That's halfway across the state!! My brother was driving home, and he said that everything turned white, and he couldn't even see the inside of his car! He actually said that he though he was dead for a minute. (White light, haha). Even so, I'd say that from where I was sitting, the light seemed to have kind of a bluish tint for a minute. The first loud strike sounded like a power plant exploded or something. There were a few more strikes, but there was no flash from what I could see, and it was more like rumbling. My brother's girlfriend, who lives forty minutes away, said she heard it about two minutes later. That was one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen.


Maybe the bluish tint came from a power transformer exploding or something like that? During the ice storm that happened around Christmas in Toronto (in 2013), we saw all sorts of transformers on power poles exploding as electrical lines hit them. They lit up the night like fireworks, but it was super eerie to see the lights from far away. We couldn't figure out what the lights were for quite a while, until we saw one nearby. Sailor7sakura (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts occurrence[edit]

Need sources for occurrence in Boston, MA at 1:45PM and 4:00PM today before adding it in. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During the 2013 blizzard dubbed 'Nemo' by the Weather Channel (February 8, and 9), thundersnow occurred during a 5-hour window from 8:PM to 1:AM in which snowfall rates exceeded 2.5 inches per hour. A banding pattern with individual snow bands set up, and each band was oriented from southwest to northeast with 40dbz. reflectivities. At one point near 11:00, Cape Cod experienced a thundersnow squall accompanied by 60+ mile per hour winds, and three flashes of lightning in one minute. In Western Connecticut, relectivities were as high as 60 dbz., with snowfall rates exceeding 6 inches per hour and frequent lightning. The storm also caused extensive coastal flooding in portions of southern Maine, New Hampshire, and coastal Massachusetts. Particularly hard-hit were locations along the shoreline from Hull to Sandwich. Hurricane force wind gusts to near 90 miles per hour accompanied the tempest as well, which formed an 'eye' soon after departing southern New England. Accumulations ranged from about 18 inches to near 40 inches in some areas of Connecticut. The thundersnow was audible in many locations, and was reported green, blue, white, and purple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.90.17 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something to keep an eye on...[edit]

Rumors of thundersnow in Arkansas and West Tennessee today...obviously wait til sources confirm it... --SmashvilleBONK! 22:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.130.90 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Clip of thundersnow[edit]

I have put in a link to a BBC video clip of a Lightning Strike Amid a Snowstorm in Kent, England, on the 1st February 2009. I don't know if the video clip can be viewed outside the UK, so maybe I should have used a youtube clip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.125 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thundersnow events - should it be a list article?[edit]

We've had a couple occasions lately where people have been making general edits to this article to mention specific instances of thundersnow in various parts of the world (without references to boot). If there's enough interest, an article which list specific occurrences, with the appropriate references included, could be created, perhaps on a country-by-country or state-by-state basis. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is becoming a mess with events being added in. I cant see there is any need for maybe one or two examples even if there are references. Even worse it seems some people are just shoving times dates and places anywhere in the article recently which is completely useless and does nothing for the page or anyone wishing to learn about Thundersnow. It appears to be nothing more than someone going "look I've put (insert local placename here) on wikipedia, yay me!" Fraggle81 (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 82.24.104.158, 30 November 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change

  1. Thundersnow was recorded across many parts of Scotland and North East England accompanying periods of heavy snowfall during November 2010.

to

  1. Thundersnow was recorded across many parts of Scotland, Northern Ireland and North East England accompanying periods of heavy snowfall during November 2010.

because, i live in Northern Ireland (Newry) and yesterday during a heavy snowfall there were several cases of this happening. Thanks 82.24.104.158 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I've gone ahead and added Northern Ireland, but I almost marked that sentence (and the previous paragraph) with a citation needed tag. Unless we can get reliable news citations for all of that, the whole thing needs to be removed. I'll check in at a later date.Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also occurred in Denmark. This current article, Snestorm med tordenskrald. Er vejret gået grassat?, on a Danish science site has an interview with a meteorologist from Danish Meteorological Institute about the subject. --C960657 (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schools closed and roads icy across north-east England (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11872780) The unusual weather condition of thunder-snow was reported in a number of areas. It has been caused by bitterly cold air from Eastern Europe passing over the top of the relative warmth of the North Sea. If there is enough instability, thunder is created at the same time as snow falls. Lightning is intensified by the brightness of the snow.

Was in bathroom 30 Dec 2010 at 07:05 in Newcastle, UK and the lightning lit up the window like someone was taking a flash photo just outside, ten seconds later there was the thunder.


Okay, before we start going off on too much of a tangent--please note that we cannot take anyone's word that there was simultaneously thunder, lightning, and snow. Only reports based on reliable sources (in this case, news reports) can lead to inclusion in the article. Again, I left what was there now, but I think anything uncited in that section should be removed very soon. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New source for thundersnow in Dublin for 1st December 2010 http://www.tv3.ie/article.php?article_id=49248&locID=1.2.&pagename=news —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewsjames (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit request/suggestion[edit]

Not so rare. Western New York has been experiencing thundersnow for the past three days. This article mentions the thundersnow and also claims Ohio gets worse snow than WNY. They are welcome to take the title from us. http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/lake-effect-nightmares-which-side-of-lake-erie-has-to-deal-with-the-worst

~~PAV5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.186.23 (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unit conversion[edit]

The page currently says: 

.9 mi (2.5 km)

those two distances aren't close to the same thing. I can't correct it because I don't know which is the right value. 76.8.80.171 (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Your reference to wind shear refers to measurements of temperature: "thus a directional wind shear with a change of less than 12 °C (54 °F)...". It should be corrected to degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.147.169 (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rarity[edit]

Judging by the amount of people trying to add Thundersnow occurances to the page it doesn't seem to be that rare of an event as is claimed by the first line of the article. Most of the claims of Thundersnow being rare on the web seem to be the product of sensationalist jouranlism and possibly gleaned from the first line of this article anyway. Can anyone produce some verifiable figures to show incidence of Thundersnow events yearly? Fraggle81 (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't so rare. We get it at least a half dozen times per winter season here in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, but, then again, this is the only place I've ever lived where I've experienced it. The article is either misleading, or needs to be clarified to explain that maybe while rare in general, for the places that do get it it's not so rare. Or something along those lines. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 07:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not rare at all where I live - in fact almost all snow falls in thunderstorms here, at least at the start. There's even a word for the thunder: yuki-okoshi, the "snow-bringer." Kagawiki (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC) [1][reply]
It might be rare, and it's totally fine to state that, but it's hardly once-in-a-lifetime. I've seen at like 16 or 17 times in my life and we don't even get that much snow here in southern Idaho. I'm keeping the rare, as it is, but removing "once in a lifetime" as it really is sensationalism.Teafico (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We just had Thundersnow last night and it was the first time I'd ever experienced it. I'm 18 and have been living in central Wisconsin for 13 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.19.46 (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thundersnow is rare the same way tornadoes are rare. It happens in en extremely low number of snowstorms compared to the overall number of severe snowstorms. --Bowser423 (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is obviously based on its sources. That's how it should be. But I will argue that the sources can't have been entirely good enough. How rare thundersnow is, obviously depends on the location. On the coast of northern Norway, any thunder could be said to be rare, but thunder actually happens more often in the winter than in the summer. In south-east Norway, thunder in the summer is more common, but winter thunder (thundersnow) is indeed rare there. [1] [2] Blue Elf (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://kotobank.jp/word/%E9%9B%AA%E8%B5%B7%E3%81%93%E3%81%97

Severe Thundersnow Warning[edit]

A Severe Thundersnow Warning (Hereafter TSN-W) is a alert type which was created by the Dublin Coffman Weather Service (hereafter DCWS) to warn of thundersnow events which meet the criteria for a severe thunderstorm. Though the warning was developed in response to the most recent such event, an example TSN-W does exist, and I think it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowser423 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is a reliable source? From all evidence presented, this is a neologism that has little-to-no usage outside of the very localized and limited group that coined it. At best, such a limited use might justify a single sentence mention, if neutral wording can be found - but with no reliable sources, there's no justification for a larger mention which simply serves to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to attempt to gain broader traction for the coined term. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We had this problem with landphoon and tornadocane when they were articles on here 2-3 years ago. At the time, tornadocane had no reliable sources while landphoon did to some degree, yet landphoon was deleted. Landphoon was mentioned in refereed papers but was not in the glossary of meteorology. This injustice has been rectified in the years since. But these situations open up a broader question. What is reliable enough for wikipedia? A refereed journal article? The glossary of meteorology? The private weather service website? Thegreatdr (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thegreatdr: just to be sure we're discussing the same thing: we're not debating the article Thundersnow, the article itself appears to have enough references and sources. The question is on the content of this edit, which added content regarding a "Severe Thundersnow Warning" to this article, which is the content in dispute. The problem is that the warning appears to be virtually non-existant in any sources outside of the localized weather group that coined the term. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bowser423/DCATE lists all DCWS recognized alert types (though the list is growing). The DCWS Severe Weather Glossary is an incomplete (but still filling) list which includes the TSN-W. "Private Weather Service" is not, I don't believe, a good term with which to describe the DCWS, due to its current nonprofit noncommercial nature. It is just a weather service. --Bowser423 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify for others, DCWS = Dublin Coffman Weather Service, which is the localized weather group already mentioned, which appears to be the one to have coined the term, and outside of which the term has no sources. The links do nothing other than enforce what I've already stated: "this is a neologism that has little-to-no usage outside of the very localized and limited group that coined it." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's still related Barek. I don't think a local private weather website is enough either. But what would be? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The best place to get clarification on that would be to post a question at WP:RSN, so that a broader audience can discuss it - ideally posting a generic notice on the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects so that persons with a direct interest in the subject are aware of the discussions. A more general synopsis of what would qualify is listed at WP:SOURCES ... but frequently there are sources that fall in a gray-area, so WP:RSN can help develop the consensus in those cases. (note: I have in my mind what I would generally regard as a RS; but what I consider one may not be considered one by others, which is why I'm pointing to the noticeboards). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am really confused as to why there is any debate: it is a pure neologism by one self-published source. Not even close to the threshold of notability where it should be mentioned here. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 23:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer thegreatdr, it would be notable with serious usage by an official source, or widespread unofficial use. This is not even close to the landphoon/tornadocane case. "Dublin Coffman Weather Service" has exactly zero mentions outside of wikis and youtube. "Severe Thundersnow Warning" is the same, aside from a few forum postings where it is used in jest (and by a few I mean less than a dozen, not thousands. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 23:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It was still worth posing the general question, for the sake of Bowser. For me, use within peer review is enough. Inclusion within a meteorological text is ideal. I don't think there's any real debate here except between Bowser and Barek/me/you, who are in agreement. Bowser can get back to us when the term is peer reviewed or included within a meteorological text. Then it can be included. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The usage is official. It is not of the NWS, but is is official. Besides that, the aforementioned Severe Weather Glossary is a nonwiki nonyoutube mention of both terms. It has not been officially used yet because no storm attaining that degree of severity (they are quite rare! only 1 or 2 per year!) has occurred since the creation of the TSN-W --Bowser423 (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the glossary in print form, issued by a university or a known major publishing house? Has the term been discussed in a refereed meteorological or scientific journal? Has it even been published in a newspaper? If not, it's not a reliable source, nor a source we would use either within the met, severe, or tropical cyclone projects. Official usage normally means used by an organization officially tasked with the responsibility of such warnings, which within the United States is the NWS. In Ireland, it is Met Eirein. If another country issues such a warning, and has a definition, direct us to the non-US reliable source and it can be added. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dublin is a city in Ohio. The TSN-W is official because official means the genuine product endorsed and distributed by an organization. Therefore, it is an official Alert type of the DCWS. Furthermore, the DCWS has tasked itself with the responsibility of such warnings. On the 18th, the opportunity may be present for the WP community to view some alerts (In particular the Severe Thunderstorm Warning [TS-W], Severe Thunderstorm Watch [TS-WA], Tornado Warning [TOR-W], and/or Tornado Watch [TOR-WA]) issued by the DCWS, given the Severe thunderstorm threat which may be present that day per the Convective Outlook (Hereafter CNV-OU). Also the Tropical Update (Tropical Weather Outlook: TRP-OU) indicates potential for some development of TCs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowser423 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I would like to suggest an undent at this point. the more indented these keep getting, the more vertical space they take up. --Bowser423 (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>
P.S. The CNV-OU and the TRP-OU are also DCWS products. --Bowser423 (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing that Dublin, Ohio exists - that's not the issue being discussed. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, find third-party reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue to attempt to develop broader usage of a neologism coined by the weather group that you operate. To be blunt, you have a serious conflict of interest, and as a result you appear to be suffering from a severe case of "I didn't hear that" when it comes to people pointing out what MUST exist to support the addition (ie: third-party reliable sources). Repeatedly restating your arguments that simply do not pass Wikipedia policy and guidelines is not going to change that. Eventually, if the warning catches on elsewhere and reliable sources begin to publish the term that may change - but it's not there yet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I may be guilty of being to close to my subject here... --Bowser423 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When thinking of instances besides this one which would be similar, I just had this to say, WP:YOA. --Bowser423 (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways of contributing to an article regarding a subject you are close to without violating that policy. You have to maintain a neutral point of view within the article (meaning no pro slant, anti slant, and making sure it can be construed globally and not just locally or regionally), accept other people's edits graciously, and use the appropriate referencing guidelines, especially if you hope for the article to reach GA or FA class. I'm sure at some point some organization somewhere on Earth will publish or define such a warning which will be defined and discussed within a reliable source. Until then however, the content can't be added. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it's a neologism by a non-notable company. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard edit[edit]

I took the liberty of removing a sentence. It said a snow squall with thundersnow is a blizzard in and of itself, but by meterological definiton, a blizzard is a snow storm that MUST have winds in excess of 56 km/h (35 mph) with blowing or drifting snow which reduces visibility to 400 meters or ¼ mile or less and MUST, and there are no exceptions, last for a prolonged period of time(typically 3 or more hours). A Snow squalls are short lived and last far less than the required 3 or more hours the National Weather Service states. --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tautolology[edit]

Why say "British Isles and other parts of Northwestern Europe" seeing as Northwestern Europe would cover everything and there doesn't appear to be anything specific about mentioning the British Isles? Or have I missed something? --HighKing (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Units of measurement[edit]

Citing from the article: "less than 54° between" "Thundersnow often produces snowfall rates in the range of 2 to 4 inches per hour. Snowfall of this intensity may limit visibilities severely, even during light wind conditions. However, thundersnow is often a part of a severe winter storm or blizzard. Winds of above tropical storm force are frequent with thundersnow. As a result, visibilities in thundersnow are frequently under 1/4 mile."

While I can understand how this could be completely in order for the american folk, the rest of the world has adopted the metric system more than 50 years ago, so please provide the proper metric equivalents. Also as this is pertaining to a scientific topic, I think it's appropriate to use the accepted scientific units, or if not at least to give proper notation and conversions. Furthermore "54°" means nothing, is it Fahrenheit, is it Celsius or Kelvin, or is it a measure for an angle?!

Kshegunov (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This issue was raised 2 years ago, and it has still not been resolved. My attempts to make the article comply with the style clearly outlined in the Manual of Style have been reverted, and something of an edit war has ensued. This is why MOS-approved standard styles exist.

I propose that if anyone has objections – based on the specific content of this article – to my reinstatement of the SI-units-first style, they should state them on this talk page. Otherwise, I think the MOS consensus should prevail by default. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that an SPA with an agenda did drive-by changes on multiple articles without discussion, and you arrived just after their edits had correctly been reverted. I suggest waiting a month before trying again so good-faith proposals to improve this article are not lost in a site-wide edit war over which units have supremacy. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this SPA is part of the latest wave of DeFacto activity (another suspected DeFacto sockpuppet has just been indeffed). It's frustrating that someone operating several illegitimate accounts who is liberal with the block button can have so much influence. My view is that we should try extra hard to ensure that such bad-faith reverts are never successful, so that everyone can see clearly that such tactics do not work. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are talking about different SPAs! I was referring to 1 while I guess you mean 2. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful! There are two problems: someone being disruptive by changing the style of existing articles to SI with edits marked as minor, and someone reverting them. Whatever the guidelines say, using them to force changes in multiple articles is highly disruptive so I think waiting a week to let the dust settle would be good, but I have no problem with what happens to this particular article provided it is decided by established editors who want to improve this article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A possible way forward on the question of units in this article[edit]

Question has arisen because this article uses Imperial units as primary when by rights it should use either metric units exclusively (as a scientific article) or put metric measures first (as a general article). My own opinion is that while weather forecasting is undoubtedly scientific, it is of general interest, and by the MOSNUM rules, metric units should come first. It is regrettable that this question should be the subject of an edit war, so I agree that with one exception, the whole matter should be left to rest for a bit. The exception is the paragraph on hazards, which has no metric equivalents. I will fix this, though I'll leave the order of units as is for the time being. In the mean time, I think it would be helpful if other people contributed to the discussion. Then perhaps we could work out what changes are needed and how to proceed. Michael Glass (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think enough time has passed. If you are confident about the MOS business (I haven't studied it), please go for it. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Johnuniq. I've made those changes. I hope that they meet with approval. Michael Glass (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I added some more converts. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how does it work?[edit]

it this a thunderstorm on cold weather

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Thundersnow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity and citation?[edit]

Could the intro definition be clearer? It seems to be lacking part of the definition, and seems to include information that may not be part of the definition. Also, can we have a citation for its definition? Thank you. Misty MH (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thundersnow&oldid=1199963351"