Talk:Winter of 2009–10 in Europe/Archive 3

Maximum amount
What is the nature of the "Maximum amount" of the infobox meant to include? I added the current Hundseid, Norway, as it had a record snowfall of 83 cm within 24 hours. But now it has been changed to 89 cm, however this is including the 6 cm that had been there from days before. And further even, the depth had increased to 102 cm some days later. So what is the nature of the section, the amount of snow on 24 hours, or simply the highest depth of snow regardless of time? If the latter is the case (as it seems now) I have a list of skiing areas in Norway with up to 150 cm snowdepth as of 5 January. -TheG (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The infobox is for a winter storm. I think it's supposed to be about the maximum amount of snow that fell as a storm sweeps over the affected region. This article isn't about a winter storm, but instead about winter. I made a new infobox Template:Infobox winter, which is used on the UK article. We can decide whatever we want it to mean I guess, as the infobox is still in development and open to suggestions.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the only thing I know is that it at least should not say 89 cm, regardless of the outcome. -TheG (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Day by day section
Currently, the event expanded one day at a time. Will this be condensed in the future? That means if this storm continues for 30 days, there will be at least 30/31 entries/section! --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any severe weather events forecast for tomorrow across Europe involving cold temperatures and snow. Germany might get a dumping of snow on Saturday night / Sunday, but we'll wait for that to happen before mentioning the event.

Climate change
I suppose the Climate Change link in the See Also section is a joke. Unless reliable sources grant it to be there it should be removed. 83.134.89.106 (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - until there is any evidence that links this winter with climate change (or suggests it is contrary to it), there should not be any implied link here. Halsteadk (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Individual weather events (even big ones like this) say nothing about climate change, which is measured statistically over decades. there shouldn't be a link. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmm. Hot weather is climate change. This is cold weather - so it's weather! Plainly not climate-related. 2152z 11.110 86.151.61.221 (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Careful with assumptions. Some variants of Greenland ice sheet speculation forecast diversion (further south) or cutting off the north Atlantic gyre of the Gulf Stream - either would result in a colder, snowier British Isles and northern Europe during the winter. A few parts of Canada are not as cold as usual (subzero temperatures did not arrive until after December), but are actually getting more snow precisely because they are warmer. (Usually by mid-January, Great Lake squalls shut off because the lakes have frozen over. If they are late freezing over, an open-water source is still available for squalls deep into the winter after the arctic high descends upon the prairies.) One winter does not a climate make, but regional cold and snow does not in itself negate an overall warming trend. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.143 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The shut-down of the north Atlatnci gyre is deemed unlikely (although still possible) by the climate change community and it's most likely GB will warm up. What we're seeing this year isn't really a cooling or warming as such, it's just that the warmth is spread less evenly than normal. Mild air is going into places which are normally cold and cold air is going into places that are normally mild. Always a bad situation, because country's adapt to their normal climate, so any change will be a pain in the ass.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  00:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many third party sources that are making a link between the topics of the heavy snow falls and climate change such as this . It's entiretly within wikipedia's norms to add topics that are considered to be related by thrid party sources and WP:SEEALSO is quite clear that the association need not be intimate, "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Handschuh-talk to me 08:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There may well be uninformed people as well as rumbles in the blogosphere that every cold winter must be counter-evidence of global warming, just as there may be uninformed people and bloggers who think that a warm summer is evidence of global warming .... That doesn't make it so. A weather event is never indicative of anything other than weather. And despite these people's arguments, weather is not climate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be more precise with an analogy: A die that rolls 6's all of the time is indicative of a weighting (cheat) in the die, but a single roll of a 6 does not tell us anything about whether the die is loaded or not. This is a single roll (weather). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Skeptics Global Warming is no way near the kind of coverage needed for it to be included in the see also section. If there are several reliable third party sources, then sure. Also, it would be much better to link climate change somewhere within the prose of the article (needs some creativity and imagination to find where). That would remove the need for it to be in the see also section anyway.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on what criteria is that coverage "no way near the kind of coverage needed"? And there are many other sources coming from many parts of the political spectrum (clealy if the pro-AGWH sources are refuting the assertions of the antis then they're both establishing the notability of the arguments);, , , , , etc. Handschuh-talk to me 00:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd use the Times article to help create a "causes" section. There's plenty in there about North Atlantic Oscilation and El Nino. You could maybe add a mention that "some climate change skeptics used the event to dissprove climate change" note how there is now a link to climate change, so we don't need it in the see also section :) Problem solved?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  00:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean when you say that there's now a link to climate change. I agree with you that it would be better to have a section that addresses the claims being made, rather than simply a link in the See Also section, but I don't think that there's any justification for reverting the good faith edits which added that the climate change link to the see also section, at least until that is addressed somewhere else in the article. The press are mentioning the two topics together and addressing the claims being made so there is ample justification for the article to at least acknowledge that. Since an edit to the See Also section to include climate change would just be instantly reverted and draw more attention to what is really a small detail, I will wait until I have authored something closer to what you have described above. I don't want to end up on WP:LAME over something this frivolous. Handschuh-talk to me 03:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added the Causes section. I hope I've kept it neutral and it's well referenced. The edit summary asks editors to come here before making any changes. Handschuh-talk to me 04:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible photo for jan 8 section from Denmark


I took this on jan 8 at dawn in Denmark, which I think illustrates very well the whether that day in Denmark, cold, clear sky and quite a lot of snow - at least in the Mid to Northern parts of in Jutland Denmark where this is from (between Randers and Viborg). I considered including it, but there are a lot of images already in the article and I do not feel I can be NPOV regarding my own creations, so I would like to let the regular editors of this page decide. --Slaunger (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Iceberg hoax?
I have serious doubts about this statement:


 * Off Ireland's north west coast in county Donegal an iceberg was spotted less than 1km from the coastline. It has been over 40 years since such a event was recorded.

I have google it, and all I can find about it is on twitter and similar websites. Is this true, or is this a hoax? --Gerrit CUTEDH 13:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just an internet rumour. There are no mentions of an iceberg in The Irish Times or the Irish Independent, searching from October 2009 to present. Ottre 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed. Looks like bullshit.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading this article you would think these people had never seen snow before. The pictures look like a typical winter scene. No picture depicts more than a few inches of snow. I'd say the whole article is a hoax, nothing but sensationalism gone rampant. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk)
 * Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. As a resident of Kansas you are no doubt familiar with what constitutes abnormal weather in the UK and Europe. The fact is that many people in the southern UK in particular have never seen snow like this as it last occurred almost 20 years ago. Halsteadk (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What weather pattern
Intro says the severe cold was due to a persistent weather pattern. An article in the UK Guardian 7-Jan-10 by R Henson says the Arctic oscillation may be the culprit. Was it, or is it the North atlantic oscillation, or an unusual track of the N polar jet stream ? And which ever pattern it was, what caused it ? Rod57 (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jet stream says El Niño (ENSO) affects jet stream track over NA - not clear about europe. Rod57 (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

El Niño is tied to cooler Atlantic Ocean temperatures. Consequently El Niño years tend to be lower in Atlantic hurricanes. This El Niño was confirmed in autumn, which would make it perfect timing for an Atlantic cooling trend to affect European winter weather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.52 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

pipes stop working
In Ireland a lot of houses were  without heating and  water cause of the cold weather and i also  notice that  this event comes only  a  few  weeks after the flooding that  we had is it just luck or what. user--86.41.162.197 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Train accident in Finland
On 20:58, 10 January 2010 user Wembwandt deleted a section about a train accident in Helsinki with the following note:

"Finland: del as irrelevant; nowhere in the source does is the cold claimed to be the cause or even suspected as such)"

It is true that the original source did not have information about cold being the possible cause. It just reported the accident in detail in English. There are plenty of sources in Finnish claiming that cold is suspected as one of the causes. Here's one: Junaturma saattoi johtua pakkasesta. The source is YLE and the title translates as "The train accident may have been caused by cold weather". Moreover, as stated in the original English source (Helsingin Sanomat), each coach has individual automatic brakes. Four individual brake systems failing to work at same time is a strong indicator that an external factor such as cold weather has played its role in the accident. --Siipikarja ♫ 11:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Finland


 * Four runaway coaches of an Intercity train overran the buffers and crashed into the office wing of the Holiday Inn Hotel at Helsinki’s Central Railway Station with an approximate speed of 20 to(-) at around 8:30 on Monday morning 4 January. Nobody was seriously hurt in the incident, as the employees of the firm located in the office wing managed to escape the crash. The quick action of routing the carriages to a track containing no other rolling stock and providing advance warning to passengers waiting in the station prevented the possibility of a much greater disaster. the reason for the accident remains unknown, but a malfunction in the automatic brakes on individual coaches caused by low temperatures is suspected.

More sources verifying that cold weather and particularly ice was the cause of the accident:
 * Runaway Intercity coaches back on the track after crash in Helsinki "The cause for Monday’s train accident may have been ice." 5.1.2010
 * Rail accident blamed on failure of coupling hooks "Ice and snow obscured decoupling - no brake malfunction" "The decoupling was caused largely by ice and packed snow that had accumulated between the coaches. The ice and snow also prevented the conductor from noticing that the hook was not connected right." 19.1.2010

Sources stating / implicating the winter of 2010 has been has been exceptionally snowy and cold this far also in Finland:
 * Deep winter conditions grip Helsinki and the entire south of Finland "Train traffic disrupted by severe frosts and whirling snow; new winter low set in Kuusamo at -37.1°C" 8.1.2010
 * Cold weather sends electricity consumption soaring 11.1.2010
 * WHY? Are the piles of snow going to hang around until spring? "This winter has been exceptionally snowy, as anyone can witness." 21.1.2010

I'm not going to edit the article since my previous edits were reverted. If someone feels motivated to edit the article based on these sources, please go ahead and do so. --Siipikarja ♫ 10:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Helsinki, the record depth of snow cover (65cm) in 40 years. Citisens have been urged to help in removing the snow on narrow streets to let the emergency traffic get to some locations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.107.8 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Heavy snowfall in Spain
Spain has experienced heavy snowfall, with severe power disruptions in Catalonia. The border with France is also closed due to the adverse weather conditions. Here's a few articles about this;


 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/09/spain-snowstorms-wreak-havoc
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1256549/Snow-hits-Barcelona-bringing-Catalonia-standstill.html
 * http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1198937&lang=eng_news

Anyone object to me adding this information? TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

windstorms
The mention of the windstorm should not be mention as its unrelated too the big freeze. --213.94.234.143 (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't an article about the big freeze.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Great Britain Snowy.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Great Britain Snowy.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 21, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-12-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 18:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

UK
Can some more non-UK content be added? The article is heavily weighted towards the UK. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. There haven't been any storms here in the UK. There has been a modest snowfall, which, embarrassingly, has stopped many public services from working. I don't see why this warrants any mention at all. Maproom (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree This is the biggest "man bites dog"-type story to be featured on Wikinews for a while. It is such a non-event. As a perverse illustrate of news media's capacity for bathos, I think it should be preserved, but I would advocate reducing it in length by at least two-thirds.

* The article is too long and unencyclopaedic. * Many of the events described are trivial beyond belief. * Also, data seems to be thrown at the article in a most haphazard manner, without any attempt to assess its significance to the overall event. Ergo, I am removing the least newsworthy items. Anything that pertains to record weather, or particularly severe weather-related incidents, I have retained. Individual airport closures for four hours, and the like, must go. Orthorhombic (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is it's an unprecedented event and moreso in the UK than the rest of Europe, hence to UK-scew and notability. It's true that 30cm of snow is nothing, in a country that has the infastructure and experience to deal with it. It's all relative.  raseaC talk to me 14:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning the existence of the article, but in the grand scheme of things, it deserves a better, more focused article. Orthorhombic (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly is not unprecedented - try 1947 and 1962/63. The UK content here is at least 70% trivial dross. Leaky  Caldron  15:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even when unprecedented in the UK, in the Netherlands the weather is also unusual for the time of the year. But there is hardly any information about it, but lots and lots about the UK...131.211.45.147 (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Every 20 or 30 years is quite unprecedented. I agree there is a lot of trivial nonsense but the recent changes have deleted too much notable content.  raseaC talk to me 15:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that most of the UK has been affected at the same time might be unprecedented, but the degree of disruption isn't. Some of us can remember heavier but more localised snow, and more severe weather-related chaos in affected areas (Dumfriesshire 1995 anyone?) The UK's recent weather and consequent problems should certainly be a part of the article, but the article definitely needs more balance. Perhaps we ought to have a separate article about the UK 2009/'10 winter weather for now, and just include a brief summary in the main article with a link to the UK article? If every country mentioned were covered in such detail, the article would become overlong and warrant splitting into several sub-articles. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the direction the article takes, the following examples are entirely un-encyclopedic. “A woman who had left her remote home at Cape Wrath in the Scottish Highlands to buy a turkey on 23 December still could not return home because snow had blocked the route” and “Attractions in Kent, such as The Museum of Kent Life and The Hop Farm. had to change their opening hours due to disruptive weather conditions.” Leaky  Caldron  16:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets be honest, most of this article will be UK based as it is in English. Most German editors would write about the issue in German. The fact there is no German article on the subject (nor any other languages) is indicitive of our obsession with the weather and the trivia that surrounds it ("Four hours to move two junctions on the M62 this morning, I tell you" etc). The sensibe suggestion for me would be to spin the UK section off into a seperate artcle and only make the same fleeting references to it on this page as any where else would be given. See Automotive industry crisis of 2008–2010, which was apparantly about a world crisis but was mainly written about the US as it was US car makers who were filing for bankruptcy and not German or Japanese ones, so the page Effects of the 2008-2009 automotive industry crisis on the United States was created as a sort of location specific spin off. It would perhaps be a good example to follow. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe the anon IP can expand the article with non-UK info? No, thought not.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Me, being the IP editor, thinks this article is not worth keeping, since the weather presented in the news is not notable, as it's not even -30C weather in the UK, with only a couple of feet of snow. If it were Buffalo, NY, it'd be a regular winter. Has the Thames frozen solid so that you can move heavy carts over it, like during the Little Ice Age, or the Maunder Minimum? No. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were the arbiter of what's on this article, only instances of cold lower 20C below normal, or -40C in general would be recorded, and only 1m or more of snowfall, would be left 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The solution to the UK bias is to expand coverage of non-uk events. Suggest a note on the WPs for Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland etc might bring in further info. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the very existence of this article is caused by the utter uselessness of UK when it comes to winter and snow. All the serious consequences that have happened had been caused by panic and lack of experience in handling the snow. The weather itself in other parts of Europe is not news-worthy at all because people know how to handle the weather. BeŻet (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that of context. On that basis no-one should ever document any weather related occurrences because there has always been something more extreme at some place in time in the history of the world. It was notable in the UK because it happens so infrequently. Does it require a clean up? Probably, however as with many things notability is always relative. 94.13.113.160 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)