Talk:October 2015 North American storm complex

Really a Nor'easter?

This is not a nor'easter. But I am grateful this has a separate article from Hurricane Joaquin. A Nor'easter typically involves a non tropical low pressure system moving northward along the east coast - frequently it never comes ashore. This is feed by 2 significant pressure cells in a near stationary location. I thought I heard a NBC affiliated station (or main main National offices) describe this by a name, sounds like a Spanish Word (think Derancho). I wish I remember the name they used for it.

Wfoj3 (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Derecho? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the article should be renamed to something more inclusive, although the system did have many aspects of a nor'easter further up the coast (coastal flooding, persistent northeasterly gales, etc.) A nor'easter is so named because of the wind direction, not the storm's direction of travel. That said, it's definitely not a derecho. I'd support a new title along the lines of October 2015 North American storm complex, which I believe has some precedence. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've got to side with Juliancolton here. The storm has impacted a variety of areas, so the inclusive title should be used. Dustin (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

How about 2015 South Carolina floods, the primary event involved? Or should it be something more inclusive? CrazyC83 (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not a nor'easter, more an Atmospheric river -https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/10/05/the-meteorology-behind-south-carolinas-catastrophic-1000-year-rainfall-event/.Lacunae (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

An atmospheric river is what contributed to the event being so severe, nor'easter still fits the bill for an overall classification. Atmospheric rivers are not events in and of themselves, they are produced by other weather systems. But as other have mentioned a different title is likely needed since nor'easter has certain connotations that may make the current title less helpful to the average reader. I'd be fine with October 2015 North American storm complex, as brought up by Julian. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah... incorporating aspects of an "atmospheric river" doesn't preclude other classifications; you still need some kind of storm system to avail of the ample moisture. The very article that User:Lacunae linked says as much: "The moisture pipeline fed directly into a pocket of intense uplift on the northern side of the non-tropical vortex." – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how a nor'easter is applicable, the wiki page says they form in the upper East coast of the USA, rather than a Gulf low or Panhandle hook or just Extratropical cyclone.Lacunae (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Heh, what? A nor'easter is necessarily an extratropical cyclone. As defined by Miller 1946, one of two main "breeds" of nor'easters (the type-A) forms over warm oceanic waters, often over the Gulf of Mexico or the Gulf Stream (see this NOAA graphic). There are no universally accepted criteria for what constitutes a nor'easter, so it's difficult to definitely apply the term to any given storm, but this event certainly had some of the characteristics of a traditional nor'easter. That said, the article has been renamed, so it seems like a moot point... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I see, I would have thought a true nor'easter required some sort of oceanic gulf-stream air-sea interaction to it. But as you say, there's likely no strict definition.Lacunae (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I'd call it Atmospheric River/Nor'easter Joaquinette, since it was in the proximity of Hurricane Joaquin. 208.84.253.254 (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you are being serious, but that definitely won't do. Dustin (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Carolina floods would be the most fitting, however in my experience North America flood articles are very difficult to get editors working on and are often deleted.Lacunae (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I am happy you renamed this article since it involved a series of pulses along a cold front boundary from Georgia to the Canadian maritimes. Furthermore, the low pressure sitting on the later part over South Carolina is a cut-off low, not a Nor'easter. Pierre cb (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Move article to be South Carolina specific?

I think that either we need to rename the article or someone should create an article specific to South Carolina. Not to minimize the tragic impacts of this event elsewhere, but this will be either the #1 or #2 natural disaster in the history of the state when all is said and done. At least 19 people died in one state. It is the single largest rain event in the past 16 years in the United States. "October 2015 storm complex" doesn't exactly evoke the magnitude of the event in the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewMoore123 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@MatthewMoore123: I think moving this article to be more focused on South Carolina is a possibility, but the title needs to be in line with WP:NPOV (neutral point of view; just addressing the "evoke the magnitude of the event" comment). Since there were fatalities from the same storm system in multiple other states/provinces, I've personally been hesitant in moving the article. To maintain the broader view, per the discussion above, the current title was chosen. It's a shame that the WP:NTROP is barely active and we don't get many people helping out with cases like this, but I digress. The article isn't large enough to warrant spitting off the events in South Carolina either (>50 kB of prose is the generally accepted point for splitting articles). Because of this, several potential titles relating to South Carolina current redirect to this page. I'm sure within the next few years we'll see numerous meteorological papers written about the event and we could better justify splitting off South Carolina. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)