Talk:Heat wave

2023 study

I added a 2023 study removed from the further reading section of climate change as a citation here. Accidentally hit submit on my phone before finishing the edit summary. Just clarifying here on talk.C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Updating Examples by country (United States) section

I've been working on the readability of the heat wave article. The penultimate section (Examples by country / United States) could benefit from some substantive edits, so I'm drawing this to the attention of editors following this page. The first paragraph mentions how 50 mln people were under heat advisories in 2019 and it was predicted that various highest low temperatures would be broken in the subsequent days. Presumably we now know whether records were broken so that could be updated. Or there may be a better example now from 2022 or even 2023. The third paragraph says deaths due to heat outnumber deaths due to all other forms of extreme weather. It compares them with deaths from floods and hurricanes, and mentions all other types of extreme weather at the end. But it does not include deaths from extreme cold. In many countries deaths from cold still exceed from deaths by heat. Again there may be a more recent period that could be cited.Jonathanlynn (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. In this move request, a clear majority supported moving the article, but consensus is not determined by counting votes but instead by quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

Through this lens, we find that the arguments in opposition to the move are stronger. They cite WP:COMMONNAME, and provide evidence for their arguments in the form of ngrams; those in support cite Google Trends, and while this is useful evidence it is significantly weaker than evaluating the use in reliable sources for ascertaining the common name.

Those in support cite WP:RETAIN, but no evidence is provided by either side as to what the original version of the article used, and those in opposition demonstrate that both versions are in wide use in British English; as such, we must discount this argument.

Considering this, we find that the strength of the arguments in opposition balance out the numerical support for the move, resulting in no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Heat wave → HeatwaveHeatwave – Reasons for move:

• Generally sees more searches on Google Trends (see here)
• WP:CONCISION, slightly more concise
• Used by WP:RELIABLESOURCES, with ten listed below:
• Met Office, NHS, The Independent, World Meteorological Organization, World Weather Attribution, BBC News, World Health Organization, The Times, World Economic Forum, Bloomberg News.
• As far as I can tell, "heat wave" is used mostly in the United States. However, looking at the article, it is not generally written in American English, therefore doesn't qaulify for WP:RETAIN. In fact, it uses WP:DMY dates, therefore is leaning more towards British English, via MOS:DATERET.

Thanks. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 13:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on the Google Ngrams. Britannica also titles their article "Heat wave", as does Webster's Dictionary, Reuters, AP, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NPR. And if there is a split in usage between American English and British English (which it appears that there is) then WP:RETAIN does apply, as this article was originally started with the "heat wave" spelling. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Rreagan007 WP:RETAIN only applies if a single variety is used. Anyway, most of sources you used are American news outlets, whereas most of mine are international NGOs. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN applies here, and the article should be written in American English, as that is what it started with. And the current title is the most common spelling in English based on the Google Ngrams I linked above, so per WP:COMMONNAME this article should not be moved. And if you want some international sources, here you go: UNICEF, International Red Cross, Canadian Red Cross, BBC, Guardian. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rreagan007 WP:RETAIN says "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.".

Looking back, the first post-stub revision that pointed towards a variety is this revision by @CalgaryWikifan in August 2004. The key bit is "30 degrees (86 F) or more." By placing celcius first, with farenheit in brackets, we see an inkling towards British English.

Therefore the article is in British English. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rreagan007 I'd also like to say that you original sources are not all great. Ngrams is meaningless.

And WP:BRITANNICA is WP:MREL. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Google Ngrams are used all the time in RM discussions to determine the most common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I agree that per WP:RETAIN the article is in British English. 92.40.196.211 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN means the exact opposite of that. The article should be written in American English per WP:RETAIN. And even if this article were written in British English, the British Google Ngrams show that both spellings are commonly used in British English. So this would be no different than the Grey article being written in American English despite the spelling "gray" being the more common American spelling. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rreagan007 "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate variety of English template on its talk page." 90.254.30.143 (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As the title itself is the spelling of a particular variety of English, it was established when the article was initially created. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: requesting more comments based on policy — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 13:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Weather has been notified of this discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 13:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Climate change has been notified of this discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 13:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support "Heatwave" is common and prevalent in North American English and Britain. There is not a real difference. Aquabluetesla (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If there is no real difference, then why should we change it? Rreagan007 (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Heatwave is a clear and unambiguous term. Heat wave less so. Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

In what way is it ambiguous? Rreagan007 (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. Google Ngrams shows "heat wave" as taking clear prominence in published books, while trends data shows fairly balanced usage for both in searches. The nominator also seems to have cherry picked outlets that support their argument while ignoring ones that did not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support: it's a tricky one but I think the trend is moving towards spelling it as one word. This also makes it easier when an adjective is added, i.e. marine heatwave is easier to read than marine heat wave. Also, I looked at the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report of Working Group 2. This is a big fat literature review. I see there that they use both spellings but the spelling in one word appears 842 times, whereas the spelling in two words only appears 260 times. See here (click on Full Report): https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ . Also, I think there is a trend also for other similar words, such as wastewater instead of "waste water", meltwater, greywater; but then again flow rate is still two words, I think it should be "flowrate". EMsmile (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

We title articles according to what the most common name for a subject is, and right now the two-word variant is definitely the most common. Maybe in another 20 yeas the one-word variant will become more common. If that happens we can move the article then, but not before. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rreagan007 We don't just name titles according to what the most common name is. That's WP:COMNAME, which is just one of the five criteria.

It's also worth mentioning that you are replying to every support !vote, potentially bludgeoning. 90.252.8.166 (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - My results bar 2 are all "heatwave" but I would assume there's some bias given I live in the UK where the word is used more than "heat wave". "heat wave" sounds more ambiguous than "heatwave". –Davey2010^Talk 18:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

But it's not the most common name. Check the Google Ngrams I linked above. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rreagan007 It is based on Google Trends. 90.252.8.166 (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Fiat Lux - Communicating science to a global audience

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 April 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LzzeSu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LzzeSu (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Just added an ecological impact section under "Other Impacts" and included some more information under "Reduced GDP" and Floods." LzzeSu (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. EMsmile (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Studies using RCP 8.5

At least 1 of the references for this article use RCP 8.5, which is no longer regarded as useful by the IPCC. I'll delete the ref, the claim in the article will need a new ref or it'll get deleted. I'll leave the other one as I can't be bothered to download it and check. Greglocock (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I assume you mean the Sherman et al. paper from 2022. However, the citation had more to do with socioeconomic trends than Representative Concentration Pathways. If the study is not credible, then why were the conclusions left verbatim in the text of the article? Removing the citation but not the text makes verifying the claims presented even more difficult. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

If a statement is made that needs a cite then the polite thing to do is put a in, and then if the statement remains unreffed, as this one will at a rough guess, then it gets deleted after a suitable time. The rather ruder (but still valid) approach is to delete the whole thing holus bolus. Because this has been in wiki for a while you'll find all sorts of RS (in quotes) that will repeat it. They are no good. Greglocock (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The text in question reads:

The countries expected to experience the highest temperatures in the future are also some of the poorest, with major portions of the overall populations lacking access to electricity and therefore a means for cooling. Climate change as well as growth expected over coming decades in countries such as India make a significant rise in the global and regional demands for air conditioning more likely. As of 2022, global distribution of air-conditioning units is skewed significantly towards wealthier countries. While installed air-conditioning units are expected to roughly double in the United States, China and European Union over the coming decades, the estimates for India are an order of magnitude larger, reflecting the growing middle class as well as the increasing need for cooling under anthropogenic climate change.

What do any of these statements have to do with RCP 8.5? ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The study that was reffed used RCP 8.5 to generate the temperature rises that were used for the numerical estimates. Greglocock (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

What numerical estimates? ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

double in the United States, China and European Union over the coming decades, the estimates for India are an order of magnitude Greglocock (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

How do you know RCP 8.5 was used to derive those estimates? ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You are Sealioning. Greglocock (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I am attempting to understand your objection to the source Sherman, Lin, & McElroy (2022). The study as a whole, and the statement beginning installed air-conditioning units are expected to roughly double in the United States [...], are about human adaptations, not just temperature. The very first citation is to the IPCC's 2018 Summary for Policymakers, which discusses multiple emission pathways, not just the most extreme. The only relevant reference to RCP 8.5 states, models project that countries such as India may be susceptible to as much as a 5 °C warming under a worst-case emissions scenario. However, this is immediately qualified: projected regional temperature variability is highly dependent on changes in emissions of both aerosols and fossil fuels [...] which could have both direct air quality and climatic implications for local communities. There are no strong claims being made about the exact amount of future temperature rise. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)