Talk:2012–15 North American drought

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:2012 North American drought)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect related to droughts or wildfires is part of the Droughts and Fire Events sub-project of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Add section on Canada[edit]

As it is, it seems like this is an article about the US with one mention of Canada. The drought is affecting Ontario too. [1] Another article here ->[2]

By all means, add this info. The drought is affecting the US, Canada, AND Mexico. All I can really gather on the matter is to look at the very slow-to-update and infrequent North American Drought Monitor for impacts outside the US. Once again, PLEASE, by all means add any new information you have for these areas.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Chat Me Up 04:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
There was a map on CBC News showing the affected areas in Canada. I believe it was from Environment Canada. Is this public domain? Can it be included in the article?TurtleMelody (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

References[edit]

This section added by Geraldshields11 (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/technology/Drought+sign+further+woes+come/6968718/story.html
  2. ^ http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/07/20/crop-prices-drought-canada-us.html

For context, but labelled Opinion, add or not?[edit]

It has a nice chart which shows deviation in annual rainfall levels beginning in 137 BC (21 centuries), from Henri D. Grissino-Mayer, University of Tennessee, "A 2,129-Year Reconstruction of Precipitation for Northwestern New Mexico, USA," 1996; David M. Anderson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center. 108.195.136.231 (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well that image is copyrighted, so you can't just add it. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


Hunt for the cites[edit]

I agree with the editor, who added the need citation tags. I am working on the hunt for the cites. Please, would another editor take a look at what I add as cites and then we can discuss to get consensus. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I found an article by University of Massachusetts Lowell [1] about the metrological issues section.
Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Maps and dates needs updating[edit]

Map needs updating since significant changes have occurred in the drought intensity and coverage. Stormchaser89 (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2012 (US Central)

Also, in the second paragraph it says the drought peaked July 17. But it doesn't indicate what year. I'm guessing 2012. However, more current articles indicate 2014 is the worst (and the worst is yet to come).

Propose rename and merge[edit]

This article now says the 2012 NA drought is an expansion of the 2010-2012 Souther US drought..... we should rename this article Drought in North America (Current) and we should merge 2010–2012 Southern United States drought into this one. Comments? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - How are you going to maintain (Current) on Wikipedia continually? The title suggestion also appears to have a different meaning than the two you suggest eliminating. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The same way we maintain Current sea level rise, a subject for which we do NOT have one article for Sea level rise in 2010-2012 and another for Sea level rise in 2012; Also since you are a blocked IP sock puppet it beats me why you expect editors to put a lot of weight on your opinions. Whenever any of these phenomena cease then the article can get an appropriate name. As it is the drought is projected to continue to next year so there is right now an ongoing naming problem; this proposal makes it easier instead of harder to maintain since we would only have to adjust the time part of the article title ONCE instead of annually (for however long is needed) and we would have just one article to deal with this single subject. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose - the current sea level rise is a long term ongoing phenomena expected to keep going for a very long time, decades in fact. the "current" drought is a random event "short term" event and expected to terminate "shortly". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Please explain the reason you are opposed.... what you provided is merely critical of the analogy in my response to the prior editor, and does not address the proposal to merge 2010–2012 Southern United States drought and 2012 North American drought, where the latter says it is an extension of the former. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. It would be cleaner if one were made for each year. The "present" is continually changing, making the article unmaintainable. 64.109.54.142 (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC
You already expressed your opinion before your other sock account was blocked. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The 2012-13 drought is not the same as the 2010-11 drought. In fact, though it gre initially from the 2010-11 drought, at the height (so far) of the 2012-13 drought, many of the southern areas where the 2010-11 drought had taken place were significantly relieved. The only reason to create ANOTHER article would be if the entire drought shifted, relieving the great plains, west, and midwest almost completely. However, The southeast drought and the overall 2012-2013 North American droughts are distinct. Watch the 52-week CONUS archive animation from the US Drought Monitor if you don't believe me.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Chat Me Up 19:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When did it start[edit]

I'm no grammar expert, but the opening sentance leads me to believe that the 2010-2012 drought started in 2010. I know it's poor construction, I just can't say why. Punctuation? Gimelgort 21:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimelgort (talkcontribs)

I see your point. The NOAA Drought Task Force has a report dedicated to understanding and explaining the origins of the 2012 Central Great Plains Drought: cite http://drought.gov/media/pgfiles/2012-Drought-Interpretation-final.web-041013_V4.0.pdf[2]. According to this, the drought that began in the Great Plains in 2012 was a separate event from the previous year's Southern Plains drought, and was a short-term drought. There should be a distinction between the long-term drought (i.e. lasting 2010 - 2012) and the short-term droughts (i.e. only lasting for a season). comment added by Kaev64 23:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Aguirre (8/2/2012). "Researchers’ Climate Model Correctly Predicted Ongoing Drought in the US". University of Massachusetts Lowell. Retrieved 8/24/2012.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  2. ^ "An Interpretation of the Origins of the 2012 Central Great Plains Drought" (PDF). 

Extreme drought.[edit]

Before the table of contents, the word "drought" appears 29 times (20 without the picture). Someone who cares about this page may want to consider the risk of semantic satiation. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Flora and Fauna[edit]

Can somebody tell me about concrete effects the drought has on the flora and fauna especially in California? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.214.238.210 (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"2012–16 North American drought"[edit]

Per http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ change to 2012–16 North American drought ?

Requested move 25 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed 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: moved to 2012–13 North American drought. I agree that the California drought should be split, but a) I'm not sure how that should be done and b) what the name of that article would be. For now, I'll add a {{split}} tag to the article, and if someone is motivated and knowledgeable enough, they can do the work. -- Tavix (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


2012–15 North American droughtNorth American drought (2012–present) – Drought continues (without an obvious end) particularly in the the American Southwest, notably in California, see Climate change in California 69.58.42.90 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC) 69.58.42.90 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Oppose: To tell you the truth, I don't like the name of the article, "2012-15 North American drought", even now. I think that the article should be named "2012-13 North American drought". I would like that name better because I think we would call a drought "a North American drought" only if it affects a large part of North America, and much of that big American drought that the introduction part of this article talked about had mostly ended in 2013 with heavy rains. Only the California and Texas droughts remained, and the Texas drought ended in 2015. Also the main focus of that article is that large drought, not the California drought. The California drought is just a side note. Lastly, for local droughts such as the California drought, I believe a separate page should be created, but that is a different issue that I will raise later. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC).

  • Oppose and concur with split idea introduced by the anon; the California drought (in which I live ...) is not really the same topic.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's been very little discussion since your relisting, so what do you think Amakuru? I've relisted it for a second time and hopefully the last Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    Hi @Anarchyte: I think there might be a consensus to move to 2012–13 North American drought here. Admittedly there's not much discussion, as you say, but two commenters have made the reasonable point that the core part of the drought, on a North America wide basis, ended in 2013 and that the ongoing droughts in California etc can be handled in separate articles. I would be tempted to close with that move myself, but you may think differently. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: I have no opinion on where this article ends up, but just a quick question, why would an article about the drought in 2012-2015 be moved to a title that only contains 2012-2013? I'd say either let the final relisting run its course or move it to where the IP proposed. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    Well have you read the comment by 73.223.175.207 above? They state that the "North American" component of this drought ended in 2013, and the article text confirms that because it says "Beginning in March 2013, improved rainfall across the Midwest, southern Mississippi Valley, and Great Plains began gradually alleviating drought in these areas". To me that's a reasonable explanation - the continent wide drought that was the original subject of this article, beginning in 2012, in fact was not ongoing in 2015, it is a far more localised drought now. SMcCandlish's comment also says "concur with split" which I believe refers to the same proposal, to leave this article about the continent wide drought that ended in 2013, while splitting off details of the Calif drought into a new article.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2016 (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.