Talk:Snow in Florida

Intro

It says:

Frost is more common than snow, requiring temperatures as high as 45 °F (7 °C), a cloudless sky, and a relative humidity of 65% or more.[1]

(My bolding). This wording seems odd. I assume the latter half of the sentence is referring to frost conditions, not snow. Shouldn't it read '...temperatures no greater than 45 °F (7 °C)'? Or if it's trying to emphasize that 45 is an unusually high temperature for frost, read e.g. 'Frost is more common than snow, requiring a cloudless sky and a relative humidity of 65% or more, though it can arise in temperatures as high as 45 °F (7 °C)'. Also, does it require this or only involve this? (E.g. I assume frost can occur even if there are some clouds.) Ben Finn 14:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry, my fault. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the accumulation of 1993 Superstorm. There were maximun 2 inches in Florida, not 4 nor 6. These accumulations were referred to more northern states like South Carolina and Alabama as you can read in the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.67.199 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your correction, as NCDC says that up to 4 inches occurred in Florida. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tampa Snow.jpg

The image Image:Tampa Snow.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible Snow event in North Florida Jan. 12 or 13, 2009 and increasing snow frequency?

AccuWeather.com shows that Lake City, FL has a 25% chance of snow in 24 hours (as of 8AM EST Monday, Jan. 12, 2009). Also, is it because of a higher population, or is Florida getting more snow events than it used to in the past several years?

The reason there are more reports of snow in Florida in recent years is because of the increasingly well-documented weather, as well as the growing population. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

12/28/2010 Snow reports at Tampa Executive from AWS cannot be cited

This entry and citation: December 28, 2010: Light snow was reported at Tampa Executive at 1AM and 5AM local time, following a rare freezing fog event around midnight. [26]

Was this report on Weatherunderground from an automated weather station? I believe it is, and if so, it cannot be trusted to accurately differentiate between fog, drizzle, mist, and snow. They are notorious for reporting snow when it isn't snowing. I would not cite this event as an official snow report unless there is more data to back it up, such as a special weather statement or public information statement from the NWS that confirms there was a valid snow report.69.153.141.54 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Jasons

1981 missing

Snowflakes were reported in the Miami area in January 1981 also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.27.200 (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

---

List of snow events in Florida → Snow in Florida – There are many reasons why "Snow in Florida" is a preferable title to "List of snow events in Florida". According to our policy on article titles, the title of an article should be as concise as possible, and "Snow in Florida" is by far the more concise title. Our policy on article titles also states that article titles should be consistent with each other, that titles should "follow the same pattern as those of similar articles". There are no other articles that follow a "List of snow events in x" format, but there is an article called Snow in Brazil. Furthermore, Snow event redirects to Snow, an article that does not even mention the term "snow event". Policy also advises us to use the most common name as the title of an article. Searching on Google Books, "Snow in Florida" gets more than 700 times more hits than "Snow events in Florida". Finally, there is no requirement for list articles to have titles that include the word "list". On the contrary, in cases where there is no title conflict with another article, it is encouraged for lists to omit the "List of" portion of the title in favour of conciseness (ex. 300 save club, Appy Awards, Bayreuth canon). Neelix (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yea, when I first made the article, I had it at "Snow in Florida". At the time, I think there was an article on "Snow in Australia" that I based the title off of. If I recall correctly, it was moved because of they wanted to indicate that it was a list, so they wanted "list" in the title. I think that's the only reason. No objections here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I also support this move. Snow in Florida is a far better title. United States Man (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. "Snow event" is a very awkward phrase. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dead links and citations

Neelix, you removed multiple dead links in various edits in July 2012, but general Wikipedia policy is not to remove dead links merely because the URL is not working, unless they are verified spam ones, useless, or you are absolutely certain that the ref cannot be found. You can check the Internet Archive and WebCite for archived links, or search for relocated urls using the site's search functions or Google.

In this edit, you removed a sentence and dead link, but after using the site's search function, I've found the relocated url, so I've put the content and new citation back in (old citation had errors). And another dead link you removed has archived versions here. I've re-added some of the wikilinks that you removed, and linked them from the appropriate text or to the see also section, since they are relevant and useful to readers.

Also, Marketdiamond next time can you completely fill in citations like these? You've been here since 2005; I thought you would've known how to properly cite refs by now. I've filled them in for you. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see this message until now, M0rphzone. Thank you for adding the archived urls. I do try to only removed deadlinks when I believe them to be irretrievable; I am not very familiar with how to track down meteorological references in particular. There are currently several more deadlinks on this article. I have nominated the list to go up on the main page here. Any help you can provide in addressing the concerns that are raised there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Neelix, I've updated the dead urls in refs #12 and 14 with WebCitation archives. If there are no archives, you can try searching the site through a search engine (using the "site:" function) or the site's own search, or try using the given data in the cited sentence (date and location) to find the file manually. Example: for the NCDC data, you can use the site's IPS (Image and Publication System) interface to find the pdf scans for a particular location and date. For finding the original accessdate of a bare url, you can use WikiBlame to find the revision that added the url (make sure to force searching for wikitext). - M0rphzone (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Point of view

Are the entries supposed to be in present tense and written as if the events were happening at the time of writing? It might be better to write them in the past tense. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Graphs, amounts

In the monthly snowfall graphs, the units of the horizontal axis should be marked.

Is it really true, as the graphs seem to show, that the 21st century has so far seen 70% of the amount of snow of the whole 20th century? This huge increase seems eminently noteworthy, yet it does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the text. 86.176.211.173 (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably not since the methods of how we record snow occurring have gotten better since the early 20th century.Jason Rees (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Those graphs seem to be the sum of the snow events mentioned in the text grouped by month. The problem is that this list is by no means comprehensive, mainly because it's much easier to find documentation of events in the recent past. I'm guessing that nobody scoured 100+ years of archives from every newspaper in the state (both defunct and still publishing) to find every mention of every snow event in Florida's history. But even if somebody had performed that monumental task, they still wouldn't have documentation of every time it's snowed in Florida. The state had a much smaller population until around the second half of the 20th Century, so some of these events took place out in the country and were not reported in any news source. If it snowed in New Tampa in 1925, for example, it likely didn't get a story in the next day's Tampa Morning Tribune because New Tampa was just swamp and scrub back then.

While the list is interesting, it's of questionable value because it can never be close to complete. Those graphs, however, are pretty much worthless and should be scrapped. imo. Zeng8r (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC),

The blurb at the top says that "prior to 1900" information for many locations is "sparse", which is fair enough. However it does not make any similar statement about the 20th century, leaving the reader with the impression that 20th century data is more or less complete. If it's as you say, and many 20th century events are likely to be unrecorded, then that ought to be mentioned. The graphs, as captioned, also give the definite impression of being complete data. If they are not then it's pretty misleading. 86.160.87.239 (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that they include all known snow events - which is, for obvious reasons, how weather and climate events are compiled. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously only known events can be listed, but something stronger needs to be said where the lists are believed to be very incomplete, in order to counteract the natural tendency to assume otherwise. 86.160.87.239 (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)