Talk:North American monsoon

Controversy

Perhaps not so much controversial as debatable, but many meteorologists do not consider the NAM to be a genuine Monsoon. Ramage in his definitive 1971 book excludes the region from his global monsoons. The reasons for this is that a complete wind reversal does not occur, and that the north American continent is too much dominated by migrating cyclones and anticyclones - whereas the Tibetan Plateau is basically in summer an area of stationary low pressure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.148.1 (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So funny! A good example of US 'what-about-us-ism'. Imagine the shame of not having an actual monsoon to boast about. Of course, the US doesn't have an actual monsoon, just a pathological fear of not being significant, by whatever measure.

I agree, the "NAM" is not recognised as a legitimate monsoon by anyone except Americans so why should it have its own article? This US-centric bias is Wikipedias huge downfall, it seems to show a certain conceit to the rest of the world. This article has no place or relevance. 101.103.189.167 (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Added section on whether this is a "true" monsoon. There still appears to be controversy over the exact definition of monsoon (is a 90 degree seasonal shift in winds enough?), but only one RS was saying it was not, while the rest were saying it was. — hike395 (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

An IP editor appears to be edit warring over how much emphasis to place on the controversy of the name. As I mentioned in 2022 (above), I only found one reliable source saying it was not a monsoon, while a number (including NOAA) were saying it was. We should follow the guideline on undue emphasis on minority viewpoints and not overemphasize the controversy.

• Putting "controversy" in the first sentence of the lede seems WP:UNDUE. I added a sentence at the end of the lede.
• I attributed the "established the fact" to NOAA (the direct source of that statement). I believe removing this from the article and replacing it with weaker unsupported language is pushing an agenda.
• Typically, the article title is also used in the body of the same article. Replacing "North American Monsoon" in the body with a vague term like "rainy season" will confuse readers. The replacement with "weather pattern" may be confusing, but I'll leave that alone for now.

Pinging Vsmith who has also recently edited the article. — hike395 (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

This article is largely copied from the NOAA website. The North American Monsoon section of the Monsoon article has nearly as much information as this article, but worded differently and with some other useful insights. With the existence of this article, much of the information in the North American Monsoon section in the Monsoon article should be merged into this article,. This will eliminate a lot of duplication. Rsduhamel (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree: I'll attempt an edit. hike395 (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I really like this article. The slight informality of its writing is more than repaid by its clarity and flow. Please don't edit out good bits like the parenthetical aside about never camping in dry washes (an important datum), or the vivid and useful term "green up." --TNH, 22 June 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.76.130 (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

My concern with your article is that you take sentences verbatim from the NOAA site without quotation marks. You would do far better to put the concepts in your own words. Report writing that commits your error is considered plagiarism in many places, and if not plagiarism at least poor writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclat (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

North American Monsoon Panoramas

In July 2006 I added a panorama of the NAM from El Cajon, CA to the article. Since then I got a better camera and in August 2008 I got some much-better pictures of the monsoon. I think these pictures give a unique perspective because you can actually see the monsoon from clear skies about 30 miles away. This is possible because the monsoon is blocked from the coastal strip of southern California by the Peninsular Range. I picked the best of these pictures and put it in the article. However, I have several excellent pictures that may look better to some people. I am showing the pictures below to see if there is a preference as to the best one to put into the article.

Image:North American Monsoon 20060704 Ramona.jpg

The original, from July 1, 2006. Too much vignetting hence the dark areas at the seams. Also taken too late in the day, the clouds are dissipating.

Taken on July 4, 2006. Taken just west of Ramona Airport, Ramona, California. This is a few miles closer to the clouds.

Taken on August 4, 2008. I think the clouds looked better on August 8 (below).

Taken on August 8, 2008. This picture was taken about 10 minutes before the one below. Notice the less-developed towers. It was also taken on a hill overlooking the camera location of the following image.

Taken on August 8, 2008 at moderate zoom. Good, high resolution picture but cropped a little too close (in my opinion).

August 8, 2008. I think this one is the best. It's not as high resollution but has more space around the clouds.

Taken later in the day (5:00 pm) on August 8, 2008. The clouds are starting to dissipate (as they almost always do before evening).

I resized these pictures for convenient viewing. They are about half the original size. If anyone requests I'll upload the full-sized versions. Rsduhamel (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)