Talk:Winter of 2009–10 in Europe

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article was renamed to Winter of 2009–2010 in Europe with more support than other names Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

---

December 2009 European snowfall → Winter 2009-2010 European snowfall — Has happened at the start of this year as well and looks to continue. Simply south (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It maybe a bit premature to move it just yet, but the title seems reasonable. Maybe add "Winter" in front of it. Mjroots (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Done and avoids a longer name in mind. Simply south (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible idea. I was thinking it would probably need to be moved eventually, epecially as it looks like the snow and cold weather is going to continue well into January. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In view of the forecast, I support the move as now proposed. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with above, can't really see too much point in waiting. One note though - once weather conditions return to normal, non-notable winter conditions, I don't think this article should continue to document them. Halsteadk (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This article should definitely end once the weather improves and the present cold snap is over. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Support things are gonna get nasty... Jolly Ω Janner 01:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I've ever seen every single authority in the UK with a Met Office severe weather warning. Note that the Isle of Man isn't part of the UK. I'm screenshoting this... Jolly Ω Janner 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This article should definitely end once the weather improves and the present cold snap is over - Which will be about April if 1962/63 is anything to go by! Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope it isn't that long or this is gonna be a huge article. :) I guess if the cold weather does continue for several more weeks, we'll have to look at slimming it down a bit. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Move from "...storms..."?

I think the title is misleading. The majority of notable disruption has involved snowfall and cold rather than storms. Storms imply wind damage. I think it should be moved to European winter snowfall of 2009–10 or even European winter weather of 2009–10. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — The title is not misleading at all as the snowfall has been from low pressure areas (LPAs) coming ashore from the north sea and when the LPAs have dropped their rain its been coming down as snow as it been very cold due to the cold temperatures.[1], [2].Jason Rees (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those links mentions the word "storm". A low pressure area is not the same thing as a storm. Unless there are multiple sources talking about "winter storms" or "snowstorms" being the main cause of this event then the article needs to be renamed. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a low pressure area is, at least in this case, most certainly the same thing as a storm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that it was very windy on Dartmoor on Wednesday, as a polar low moved south to France, so there was at least one snow storm in my opinion, although most of the snow up north probably wasn't storm-related. Jolly Ω Janner 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thinking long term, European winter of 2009–10 or Winter of 2009–10 in Europe might be better. It would fit in with other similar articles. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think European winter of 2009-10 would be better. Jolly Ω Janner 14:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think that regardless or not of the "storms" that have occured, surely this article should be called "winter" for a wider context. This type of cold weather has been going on throughout Europe since 10 December. This is surely just one of those 1 in 20/30 year winters that are especially cold. The emphasis should be more on the winter, than the storms. Jolly Ω Janner 17:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Seperate articles

Like stated above, this article is heavily influenced by the UK, would it be a better idea to split this article so there eople can focus more on certain areas of the continent and how the storm has affected them, as at this moment in time it just looks a miss match of often out of date news. For example this article states 90 people have died in the storm whilst just yesterday I read an article on the BBC saying 120 people had died during the storms in Poland alone. Any thoughts? Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've hunted around for non-UK info and found a few bits, like the swiss avalanches, just by googling country names and likely phrases ("winter kills" etc) Totnesmartin (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that there are Swiss avalanches every year - they are not normally notable events. Neither is a lot of the cold weather in continental Europe at the moment. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It was, apparently, Switzerland's worst avalanche disaster in several years, but yes, the danger of reporting the regular as the unusual in the search for content must be heeded. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, my point proven. If this weather is so common in mainland Europe and there is already a huge focus on the UK then why has it all been clumped together in one article. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the article into a new article named Winter storms of 2009–2010 in Great Britain and Ireland

Arguments for splitting	Arguments for not splitting
This kind of weather is only significant in the United Kingdom - the kind of weather, is not that unusual to Europe - even though it may only come every five years or so. However, this is the worst winter weather in the UK for 28 years. --OrangeStu (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)	Splitting the article would only increase the number of articles already related to Winter storms of 2009-2010. It would lead to a lower overall quality of the subject and a dispersal of information. - Galmicmi (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
	The storms are international. Simply south (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
	Giving special treatment to a geographically small area such as the UK and Ireland would be a clear example of systemic bias. WFCforLife (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone has created the article. Simply south (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a very bad idea to split this, especially as the new article is incomplete and has no references. A suggestion had been made to merge it with February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall which would only confuse matters further, so I've changed it to a suggested merge with this one. As the winter storms are an ongoing event this article is a work in progress. Once it's all over (reckoned to be in nine or ten days time if weather reports from yesterday are anyting to go by) then we'll be able to put this all into perspective and we'll also have a much better idea of how much information needs to be included. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have less of an issue with a split than I have with the proposed naming. These are not storms in the UK. It is a sustained period of unusually cold weather - storms typically tend to be here today and gone tomorrow. Leaky Caldron 16:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons

This article doesn't do a particularly good job of explaining why temperatures of -20C, or snowfalls of 15 - 20 centimetres, are particularly significant. I expect this is because Europe does not normally experience conditions like this, so I'd like to see some notes of what Europe does normally expect. How much snowfall, if any, can normally be expected? What's an average cold snap? Living in Canada, we expect days below -30C fairly regularly in the winter, and temperatures occasionally drop below -40C (-46.1C in my area in December), and snowfalls of 15 - 20 centimetres, while unpleasant, are not grounds for staying home from work. Obviously, given that these sorts of conditions are more commonplace here, we have the infrastructure to handle them. A country whose temperature rarely drops below, say, -4C would have a horrendous time if it dropped below -20C. A country who rarely gets any snow build-up on the roads is going to be all but shut down with 20 cm. I don't have the necessary information to add comparisons to normal European winters, but I'm hoping someone else does and agrees with me that it would improve this article. In the meanwhile, I do highly recommend tuques.  :) --Yamla (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As a further example of comparative infrastructure, during Ottawa's record snowfall of over 4 metres in 2008 (see linked picture), three-quarters of all passenger trains arrived more than one hour late in the Ottawa corridor, but none of them broke down or were stalled and nearly all of them arrived less than two hours late (roughly 40% longer than usual). The overall on-time arrival of trains during the same winter quarter, including the Toronto-Ottawa corridor, was 53%. This was cited in the context of "We have to do better."

http://canadianimagination.blogspot.com/2008/12/snow.html

http://canadianimagination.blogspot.com/2008/06/via-rail-reliability.html

It's the coldest December across the UK since 1995 (source). Jolly Ω Janner 00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nordic countries are used to this as well so the effects are tolerable in this part of Europe. That doesn't mean we aren't sick of it but it's not that unusual. I do agree though that the article should probably explain this better but the focus seems to be on the British Isles. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

isn't there a climate of Europe - type article on WP? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work! Meanwhile, here's a comparison between winter in Norway and elsewhere ;) Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It might also be useful to compare with other severe winter events such as the Great Frost of 1709 & the extreme winters of 1928/29, 1939/40, 1946/47 & 1962/63 125.168.100.73 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, I look at this too and I think "Oh no, Europe has been covered in a light dusting of snow". A little historic context would be helpful. I mean, in Canada you go out and drive to work in -10 with a sweater on and a comment like "not too bad today". --65.127.188.10 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I remembered that I had a book which had some mention of what happened during the 1928/1929 winter, the following is a summary of that material.

The cold weather started sometime before Christmas 1928 and by late January 1929 things had become desperate.

• The canals of the Netherlands & what was then known as the Zuiderzee were frozen as was the lower reaches of the Rhine river. All German ports were affected by ice, All ports in the Baltic were presumably completely iced in.

• Temperatures west of a line drawn between Berlin & Vienna frequently dropped to -5ºF (-21ºc) accompanied by heavy snowfall.

• The Danube at Vienna was frozen over for the first time since 1889 and reports from further east indicated that the river was also frozen over between Budapest and Belgrade.

• Temperatures in Yugoslavia were reported as reaching -30ºF (-34ºC) while those in Palermo were reported as being -9ºF (-23ºC). Snow was reported in Syria with heavy frost and rain reported in Lebanon.

• On the 29th of January, heavy snowfall and temperatures of around -35ºF (-37ºc) were reported from Timisoara.

• The low temperatures and snowfall apparently ended sometime early in February 1929.

I've been searching for online references to this but have had little luck. I'm surprized that this weather event has not been covered by Wikipedia before now. Graham1973 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Merging sections?

I think some of the sections should be re-merged as they're incredibly short. When I was originally writing this article I deliberately grouped together some of the days where there was less information (eg, 17-18 December, 24-28 December) so that the sections would be a decent size. It doesn't seem necessary to me to have a heading for each day, 16 December being a classic example where there are just two lines of prose. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Old refs

We've lost a few useful refs during the re-write so I'm provigind a link to an earlier version (mainly to keep track of articles I've already searched out). [3] TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Diary

This article is well researched but is starting to look like a diary.

2 January very cold

3 January very, very cold

4 January ice and cold

5 January ice and very cold

JB50000 (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT! Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I know I'm biassed (because I wrote most of it) but this article was much better until it was split into separate headings for each day. If nobody voices any strong objections in the next day or so, as mentioned above, I'm going to re-merge some of the sections. Certainly, 16 December isn't really necessary as it contains just two unreferenced (though accurate) lines of text, and could be merged. Not much really happened on the 17th, so that could be merged with the 18th. Some days can stand alone, eg, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 December, and 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 January. 24 December-3 January can be summarised. I mught just add that 24 December is just one line. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, reunite them so it flows more. Right now it looks like old news reports. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• A section per day is clearer than mixing up several day's events in a tangle of "varying the expression" and "best essay style". I have re-separated 16-17-18-19 December's sections. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• The sections are too small at this time, so per all the comments above I am reverting back to my edit. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Only because of people snipping at them. Those sections were adequately long earlier. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Going back a couple of days I agree that they were long enough, and they were adequately referenced. Alas, whoever consolidated the information also chopped out a lot of good references. When editing of this slows down, I'll go back to my earlier version (above) and re-add some of them where necessary. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe split it up. Weather in France. Weather in Germany. Weather in Britain. Then you will have pockets of cold weather days in Germany and can write up on that. Otherwise, we'll soon have a Bad Weather somewhere in the world, week of January 1 JB50000 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly

Is a day-by-day breakdown really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.226.38 (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What's your better suggestion, professor? Lugnuts (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I at least find this article unbelievably unreadable. It looks to me like an aggregation of facts and tidbits with no cohesive narrative. __meco (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup i agree. Also, the first sentence.. (paraphrasing here) the winter of 2009-2010 in europe is a meteorological event causing one of the coldest winters in europe how can the winter be an event that causes itself ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.115.72 (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And on the flipside

• In Bulgaria it seems to be unseasonably warm. Nanonic (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, dear, that'll curdle the yogurt. I saw a thing on the BBC that showed a warm patch over the middle east atm - Bulgaria could be getting the edge of it. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Yep. Gulf Stream is further south than normal, bringing warm, moist westerly air flow to the south of Europe and cold, dry easterly air flow to the north. Jolly Ω Janner 16:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Not the gulf stream but the jetstream. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • actually Gulf Stream is correct. Simply south (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Both? Not sure how you define Gulf Stream, but I don't think there's much change in ocean currents. It's the air currents way up in the air that's changed their normal path. Jolly Ω Janner 15:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Gulf Stream has gone north and west to Greenland. Jet Stream has gone further south to the Mediterranean. "...in Crete, the temperature on New Year's Day reached 86F (30C), an all-time record for Europe in January." Jolly Ω Janner 20:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Banner sanity

As this page is currently linked from the main page, might I suggest we either temporarily remove or collapse the proliferation of banners that adorn the top of the article - looks messy as hell. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do. That's at least two users who don't want them. Jolly Ω Janner 16:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You can already do that, just click hide. Simply south (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Much better - cheers! --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reinstated the two banners {{prose}} and {{geographical_imbalance}}. These issues have not been addressed to any degree of satisfaction, and that is deplorable. The article is very messy, and we need to mobilize editors to work on that, not masquerade the fact for the period of time when the article has a high influx of readers/potential editors. __meco (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Effect on UK Exams

Over January, there are two million examinations being held, and there is much discussion as to whether exams will be cancelled (with teacher assessment), forced sitting in June, postponded (i.e. until February) - should this not be discussed? --OrangeStu (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning if they are cancelled or whatever. My school has announced it will be open Monday morning just for exams even if it is closed (which is quite likely). I have an exam 9am Monday morning :) Jolly Ω Janner 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was mocks this time of year? (then again, mine were in 1983 so things may have changed just a little...) Totnesmartin (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, real GCSE and A level exams are this week. There are re-take exams for them in June, though, but that would still be disruptive and most students will have forgotten the information by June. Jolly Ω Janner 14:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not noteworthy. Europe isn't exactly on the edge of its seat because of a cancellation of exams that have very little to with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sheridan (talk • contribs) 19:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there weren't any major problems anyway. Looks unotable to me. Jolly Ω Janner 19:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Winter of 2009–10 in Europe

File:Satellite image of snow-covered Great Britain on 7 January 2010.jpg Satellite photo of GB
Starting date	10 December 2003
Thawing date	4 February 2004
Region affected	Europe
Effects
Number of deaths	150
Number of injuries	2,000
Economic cost	£4 billion
Records

The infobox doesn't seem very appropriate. It's more suitable for a single polar low or American "nor'easter". This is an article about a whole season. I think we should together build a new infobox. It could be used in many other articles, too: 1946-47, 1962-63 and 1990-91. Jolly Ω Janner 23:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something like the infobox used in the PTS seasons?.Jason Rees (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It will certainly be a good baseline which to model the new infobox around. Jolly Ω Janner 23:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for that prototype? Jolly Ω Janner 01:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The absolute worst title ever!!!

Unless this article is covering every noteworthy event that has happened over the winter the title is misleading, it sounds as if it is covering a period of time rather than an event (i.e. the weather). It needs changing. Soon. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that months would be more assossiated with time. "Winter" is a season and I think then when most people hear "the winter of 1963" they think of the coldness of the winter. That's what winter is ussually about. We deal with is the same way for the UK's past cold winters. I think that in the long-run this winter will be remembered. Jolly Ω Janner 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that weather needs to be mentioned, or something similar. There was nothing wrong with the old title really. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes there was. As far as the UK is concerned the current event is not and never was a "storm". Leaky Caldron 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The "storms" only made up a small part of the weather. The cold temperatures, ice and snowfall all occured over the course of this winter. We can therefore grouop it under "winter". Most people assume that winter implies some weather context. Jolly Ω Janner 00:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It still needs a differentiation froma period of time such as an entire season. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? What's wrong with "winter"? Jolly Ω Janner 00:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think that wieather needs to be mentioned and that without this the article title could easily be understood to be referring to a period of time, i.e. all the things that happened in Europe during this winter. Of course it would be wonderful if we could get to the point where such an article was a reality, but that appears to be still in the future. __meco (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Be practical; nobody says 'winter' alone and means what the Prime Minister did; he means Winter as in snow snow snow santa claus and christmas. --94.70.94.213 (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what was wrong with "Winter 2009-2010 European snowfall". I can't see any discussion that resulted in it being changed to the IMHO misleading "storms" title, and from there it has now become vague and meaningless (through re-opening of an archived discussion thread, the original conclusion of which is now lost in the history). The article is surely meant to be related to NOTABLE conditions, not typical winter conditions (which are likely to include "storms" or gales). Isn't it the snowfall and cold temperatures that are notable here. Halsteadk (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowfall isn't a good title as it implies it was solely the snowfall. Hundreds of people have died because of the cold temperatures. You could argue that the cold temperatures are more notable than the snow. They can both be grouped under "winter" that's what it's associated with. If we think in the long-term of the lasting legacy of this event then winter seems better. People talk of "the winter of 1962-63" etc and not the "1962 snowfall". Jolly Ω Janner 14:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rail station unable to move, shock!

"Rail stations in Kent were delayed for up to three and a half hours, with hundreds left stranded."

Eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.91.182 (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh... any particular reason you couldn't be arsed to change that to trains instead of rail stations yourself? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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 [4]. 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); [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], 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)

Proposal to rename Article Winter of 2009–2010 in the United Kingdom

This is clearly an article about a newsworthy story in the UK. But very little else. It should be renamed as such.

Adding photos of Bergen in the snow or saying that the temperature in Sweden or Finland was -20c or whatever is clearly just nonsense. Bergen is always in the snow at this time of year. And it's always drops to those sort of temperatures in Scandinavia. Those are not news items nor relevant to the title of this article. Wembwandt (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1. A lot of this article is about places other than the UK. You clearly haven't read it all the way through. Jolly Ω Janner 14:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
2. There is already Winter storms of 2009–2010 in Great Britain and Ireland for UK-related info only. Jolly Ω Janner 14:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not nonsense. The weather patterns are unusual as explained further up on this talk page. In addition to that, we don't judge what is or isn't relevant based on individual opinions but on what reliable sources are saying. That said, I agree that what we're seeing here in Scandinavia is not unusual but it's not trivial either. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with renaming. (Although I'm not sure to what?) It clearly is almost exclusively about the UK and mentioning the temperature in Finland or showing Zermatt in the snow is not really going to change that. But what would be a more appropriate title? The Harsh Winter of 2009/10 in the UK? Surely someone can come up with something better than that. JaneVannin (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As explained there's already Winter storms of 2009–2010 in Great Britain and Ireland. Renaming this would be pointless. Start a merge discussion if this is what you want but I'll remind you that we do not decide what is relevant, the sources do. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case we already have a duplication of content issue so I suggest instead of deciding on a new name we need to first sort out what the scope of each article is (and whether there are actually two or if one is sufficient). I oppose any renaming until this is sorted out. How can you name an article until its purpose is defined! Halsteadk (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As a Bergen, Norway resident, I can clearly say that it is not "always in the snow at this time of year" as User:Wembwandt claims. As a matter of fact there has just barely even been snow for the last 10-20 years (if not even longer) here in the winter, and rarely "-" degrees. The state we have had now, with -10/15 degrees and thick snow laying all over for many weeks is very exeptional. Regardless, all the news on TV says it is exeptional, and links it with extreme snowfall and cold in Spain, Poland, Ukraine etc. as the same event. User:Gabagool/sig 15:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think that since there is such a heavy emphasis on the UK, it should go into a separate article, and this article should remain to cover the rest of Europe, so that a better weighting happens. As WP:NOTPAPER, two articles are not excessive. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying this article shouldn't cover the UK at all? Or should cover the UK, but to an equal level to the rest of Europe? I believe the latter is what the community have been trying to do by adding more info on the rest of Europe in the past few days. By all means split off a seperate article, but I don't think it will be of good quality (see for yourself, it's not looking too good at the moment). Jolly Ω Janner 19:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the principle of 2 articles if that's what consensus decides is best (I'm not yet convinced), but in that case this one should have no more detailed UK content than any other country, duplication needs to be minimal, and a heck of a lot of material needs to be transferred to the other article. There should certainly be more in that article on the UK than this one - which is not the case by any means. Also I think the other article should cover the "British Isles" not the "UK" - for a natural event there's no point in separating coverage of Ireland. The fact that there are disjointed but interrelated discussions across both pages suggests even more strongly to me that one good article with a sensible amount of detail that will still be notable in a few weeks would be better than two. Halsteadk (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep it at two articles and keep them linked. Also, "...Britain and Ireland" rather than "...United Kingdom", as there's not really enough Irish info to justify its own article.

Look at the bright side. At least the article more well written than a certain other region in the world that nobody cares about. - 60.50.241.18 (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

True -- and let's not forget the snowfall last (Chinese) New Year as well. As a broad point of comparison re objective notability, may I suggest that continental editors check with their local ski resorts? Their opening/closing dates, snow base, and avalanche events should be available locally for this year and past years. Several World Cup events were cancelled in previous years due to lack of snow. - Tenebris

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

The snow in Spain

I do not know what the BBC has reported on Jan 8th but winter snowing in Granada (Spain) is not uncommon, being that city so close to the highest mountains in the Peninsula. Elevation is some 700m.

On the other hand, Jan 10th there was light snowing in outskirts of Seville (elevation some 5m). First in some 50 years.

http://www.abcdesevilla.es/20100110/nacional-sevilla-provincia/nieve-comienza-cuajar-sierra-201001101321.html

Etaoin Shdrlu (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the Sierra Nevada didn't get that name for nothing... Totnesmartin (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was finding it strange that the article talks exclusively about cold weather in the north, while it's more newsworthy (IMO) when it happens in the south. First snow in Seville since 1954. I heard northern Italy was hit pretty hard just before Christmas. I don't know how rare six inches of snow is for Bologna, but it sounded like they were paralyzed, and that seems like it should be mentioned here. -Freekee (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are any unseasonal wintry weather events causing notable disruption in the south or even east of Europe then don't be put off adding it to the article just because it says in the lead it's about "North Europe". Jolly Ω Janner 02:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

January

I've copied over all the relevant January events (so far) to the UK/ireland article, does somebody want to be WP:BOLD and prune out excess Britishness from here? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fahrenheit

Is it really necessary to convert everything in Fahrenheit? Gentleman wiki (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, many people reading this article won't understand the celsius scale. Jolly Ω Janner 16:44, 11 January 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

Further information: [[:Helsinki Central railway station#Incidents|Helsinki Central railway station § Incidents]]

• 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 30 km/h (12–19 mph) 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. As of 8 January 2010 the reason for the accident remains unknown, but a malfunction in the automatic brakes on individual coaches caused by low temperatures is suspected.

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)

Picture of Europe?

Could we have a picture of Europe to illustrate the article? The current picture is already used in Winter of 2009-2010 in the United Kingdom so there's no need to use it here as well (no matter how great the picture is). I found a pretty good one showing Europe on the NASA website: [10] It shows the difference of temperature across Europe compared to the period 2000-2008. In particular, it shows that the biggest anomalies are in fact in Poland and Russia. Any objections to using this picture in place of the current one? Laurent (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems good. Get it in high res, crop out Europe and upload it to Commons. The satellite pic of the UK can be put elsewhere. Also, I'm not sure which image to use for that too. We have one that has Great Britain and Ireland and another (in higher res) that has just the UK. Which to use? Jolly Ω Janner 00:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This version is most likely going to become a featured picture so I guess that the one we should use. The ROI is not really covered in snow so I don't think it matter whether it appears on the picture or not. Laurent (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that that's still a picture of the UK (featured picture or not) and the lead image of this article should really be one of Europe. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The image is only for one week in December. It doesn't cover the winter very well. It also crops out parts of Iceland for some reason. Jolly Ω Janner 16:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Economic impact

I just removed the unsourced claim that the economic impact is £700 million. I have heard many different claims for the economic impact, ranging from £700 million per day at the height of the disruption, to a negligible overall impact, so someone will have to phrase it very carefully if they want to add any claims on this. Here are just a few links:

• http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6977164.ece
• http://www.marketwatch.com/story/snow-costs-retailers-but-economic-impact-small-2010-01-06
• http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-big-freeze-2010-an-audit-1863350.html
• http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE60A19820100111

Much too soon for accurate cost estimates in any case. We probably will not get reliable figures until midsummer. - Tenebris

When I first added that statement it was referenced, but a user removed the citation when making another edit. I have reinstated the inline citation and also added one to the end of every sentence to avoid this mishap happening again. "The full cost to the economy remains to be seen but early estimates set the figure at £700m." Jolly Ω Janner 00:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

North America

The winter was also very cold in North America, with Florida seeing some record lows. Surely that also deserves mention? 68.83.179.156 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Florida - now part of Europe. 81.157.43.45 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You can have it.70.171.243.158 (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Slightly adapted the introduction to give global context -

The winter of 2009–2010 in Europe is one of several linked ongoing meteorological events which has been causing unusually cold weather and atypical snowfalls in several parts of the Northern Hemisphere. The northern half of Europe is currently experiencing one of its coldest winters since 1981–1982.

I still don't like "causing" used this way but I have a deadline, will come back to it later. - Tenebris

Maybe someone should mention global warming? 68.143.88.2 (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Original research at this point, no matter how it is worded or which side is supported. Also too early for NPOV in this context. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.90 (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hopefully when this article is more stable and improvements occur, there will be a causes section. By then there might be more research into the cause of hemisphere-wide disruption. At the moment a link in the see also section to the winter storms of this year will be sufficient. Jolly Ω Janner 17:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for having fixed my grammar and other things. Apparently even simple grammatical agreement is beyond me with too little sleep. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.55 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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 [11]. User:Gabagool/sig 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. User:Gabagool/sig 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.