Talk:Chinook wind

message: I'll add satellite photos illustrating the coastal Chinook (the sections I've just put in) when I can find them, copyright-free somewhere.  Suggestions?  
References also forthcoming for the Chinook-Wind First Nations story; the weatherman usage is common enough on the local airwaves to not be able to cite anything other than excerpts from newscasts, or some guy you knew on a pier or a ferry somewhere who used the word.  Searching the newspaper archives is an option, but they charge for that these days.
PS I'll admit my style is a bit too casual or chatty (and sometimes verbose) but hopefully it's readable and not outside the desired neutralities of wikification etc.  I'm working on writing wikifully more and more as I go on.
Skookum1 04:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Satellite Pics and References Coming Soon

message: Okay, please stop the revert war on the photos.  Since there are two options that are currently being selected, why don't we just have a quick poll as to which one people prefer?  Please vote in the support section below your favourite option.  -- JamesTeterenko 05:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the quick poll, as it is very clear we are not ready for it as per comments below.  -- JamesTeterenko 21:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo revert war

message: ==== Mediators and Administrators ====
CalgaryWikifan : You repeatedly stated (e.g. here) that you believe intervention by administrators and your stated acceptance for the ruling of an administrator is related to mediation. This is not the case. Mediators do not have to be administrators and administrators do not have to be mediators.
* Im a mediator but I'm only suggesting a course of action. I do not have any authority.
* To quote WP:ADMIN: Any user can behave as if they are an administrator (provided that they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions.. If you agree to be bound by the rulings of arbitrary administrators you need to read WP:ADMIN and re-think that position.
* Wikipedia:ArbCom makes binding agreements. Taking a minor disagreement to ArbCom makes you look silly.
I do agree that this matter is silly, but the solution was already offered to Elpoca, but Elpoca is trying to force it to ArbCom. *shrugs*  CalgaryWikifan 02:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your personal view. Do you assume good faith when you make that claim? --Fasten 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And, of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be.
Please don't attack Elpoca for making a bold edit. The problem starts when somebody reverts, instead of discussing the issue, and does not anticipate a further revert by the other editor. You seem to have both reverted quickly. --Fasten 18:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications 

message: CalgaryWikifan : You repeatedly stated (e.g. here) that you believe intervention by administrators and your stated acceptance for the ruling of an administrator is related to mediation. This is not the case. Mediators do not have to be administrators and administrators do not have to be mediators.
* Im a mediator but I'm only suggesting a course of action. I do not have any authority.
* To quote WP:ADMIN: Any user can behave as if they are an administrator (provided that they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions.. If you agree to be bound by the rulings of arbitrary administrators you need to read WP:ADMIN and re-think that position.
* Wikipedia:ArbCom makes binding agreements. Taking a minor disagreement to ArbCom makes you look silly.
I do agree that this matter is silly, but the solution was already offered to Elpoca, but Elpoca is trying to force it to ArbCom. *shrugs*  CalgaryWikifan 02:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your personal view. Do you assume good faith when you make that claim? --Fasten 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediators and Administrators 

message: CalgaryWikifan : You critized Elpoca at the fringe of making a personal attack for making a bold edit.
To quote WP:BOLD:
: And, of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be.
Please don't attack Elpoca for making a bold edit. The problem starts when somebody reverts, instead of discussing the issue, and does not anticipate a further revert by the other editor. You seem to have both reverted quickly. --Fasten 18:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold edits 

message: Actually, this has gone on long enough.  Although I honestly don't feel it would be in the best interests of the article, I'm willing to compromise.  How about we simply reduce the images to three: photo 1, photo 2, and photo 3?  Would this be an acceptable? Elpoca 04:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to go with #3, then #2 is completely unnecessary, since it looks like a crop of #3 (even if it isn't). Just go with #1 and #3. --Dogbreathcanada 07:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've separated the compromise offer from the heated debate above with it's own headline, if you don't mind. --Fasten 18:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Photo number 1, and perhaps #3 as well, would be fine, but there are further logical arguments from today against #3 in the discussion underneath it that should be considered first. How critical is this to my agreeing to this?  Not critical at all.  If the newer comment is read and photo #3 is still included, I am fine with that. CalgaryWikifan 02:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: There has been the sensible proposal of putting all the pictures on Wikimedia Commons and add a reference to the content on commons, e.g. with : 
While you can do that this leaves open the question which pictures to include in the article.
I do think the three pictures already look crammed and maybe we can try to reduce this to two pictures in this article?
Please add your reasons why any of the pictures is a candidate or why it is not a candidate to the individual pictures below and please sign your remarks. Dogbreathcanada: I hope you don't mind me reformatting your contribution to the debate. --Fasten 14:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. I did some extra refactoring. --Dogbreathcanada 19:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Commons 

message: none|thumbnail|Chinook arch over Calgary, January 6, 2003
*This first photo demonstrates quite clearly, and beautifully, the chinook arch. --Dogbreathcanada 09:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 1 

message: *This second photo demonstrates quite clearly, and beautifully, the chinook arch. --Dogbreathcanada 09:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 2 

message: *This image, while very nice, is too darned wide at a viewable resolution (obviously thumbnail is inappropriate as a size option). Drop this image. --Dogbreathcanada 09:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think your point has been understood but still it is perfectly acceptable on wikipedia to make bold edits. Please try to avoid personal attachment to your articles and try to enter a discussion instead of reverting when you think relevant material has been removed. --Fasten 13:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 3 

message: *Whereas this fourth photo is a chinook arch, it doesn't demonstrate the "arch" component well enough. I'd drop this photo. --Dogbreathcanada 09:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 4 

message: There seems to be a preference for pictures #1 and #3 and the arguments for pictures #1 and #3 seem more conclusive.
* #1 is not showing an arch in full but shows interesting details.
* #2 is too much like #3 and seems redundant.
* #3 indeed seems to show the phenomenon as a whole (or a very lage part of it).
* #4 doesn't appear to be showing details of an arch.
Is anybody against selecting pictures #1 and #3 for inclusion into the article? --Fasten 14:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  In light of the comments made for photo 3, I'd suggest that it is made larger than it originally was, but if this will cause further ill will then I'm not bothered.  Elpoca 18:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That remark was entirely unnecessary, what made you think it was worth making? --Fasten 20:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I think you're misunderstood the sentiment behind my reply.  Expressing it differently, because of comments made above under photo 3, I think it would be good if photo 3 was larger.  However, if CalgaryWikifan or anyone else feels that it would unfairly be promoting my own image, then I'm happy to have it restored at its original size.  This cannot possibly be construed as mean-spirited or rude! Elpoca 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would I care what size it is?  Go with the larger size; it is easier to see.  *rolls eyes* CalgaryWikifan 19:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I seem to have misinterpreted that statement. It sounded to me as if you wouldn't care if you were causing further ill will. --Fasten 10:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Let's go with #1 and #3 CalgaryWikifan 23:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with including #1 & #3.  I believe that the width of picture #3 should be about 600px.  -- JamesTeterenko 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for mediating this disagreement, and thank you to all users who gave their opinion on this article. Elpoca 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: This article is lacking references (one link to xmas snow statistics and one to an amateur website?). I am particularly skeptical of the claims regarding the tsh- pronunciation on the west coast. At least nowadays, I think that pronunciation has all but disappeared in favor of sh-. Pineapple Express, on the other hand, is a widely used term. heqs 11:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the whole article warrants a rewrite/restructure/reference verification. But that'll have to wait for another day. Williamborg 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yeah.  I grew up in Washington (the state!), and lived 25 of my 26 years there.  Never have I ever heard a Washingtonian or Oregonian say it as in church! Chinook is a very common word in the Northwest. In place names, commercial products, casinos, the salmon, etc., and is just part of the local vernacular in general. I find the etymology to be of note, but we even referred to the tribe as IPA: ʃɪnʊkʰ. It sounds like a francophile maybe added this stuff so I'll be forgiving and take no offense. But will emphatically make it clear that another Northwesterner, who isn't as sensitive as I am, might not have been so kind. Also, I can't speak for British Columbia, but we shared more in common with them than with the rest of the US it often seemed, and while I can't confirm or deny the claim of their pronunciation, I can't ever recall hearing anything of the sort in the many trips we took to Victoria. The waitress would never say "would you like to try our tshinook salmon special?" And yet the pronunciation of 'about' and 'sorry' and such would still be distinctly Canadian. But while I can make no definitive claim on B.C. pronunciation, I can speak for Washington and Oregon with explicit confidence! And yeah, as far as weather terms go, Pinapple Express and the subsequent "liquid sunshine" are far more ubiquitous. Khirad 13:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation and references 

message: 15 sections seems like a bit much for this article. Can some sections be combined? —Rob (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that it's no longer in use has nothing to do with its origins on the Lower Columbia and affecting the Columbia Basin; it is'e' used in BC, e.g. in the Okanagan, in reference to adiabatic winds or whatever, i.e. warming/drying winds - but those same air masses are the warm, wet airmasses which form the "monsoonal" airflows on the Coast, with the mountains drying them out as they cross into the Interior and beyond the Rockies; Okanagan Chinooks aren't as strong as in Alberta or Montana, but they're nonetheless real; and the origins of the term in reference to warm winds is born out in the creation of the term in coastal and adjoining regions long before Alberta and Montana were settled; likewise the Chinook-wind native legend from the Gates Valley area mentioned, which is about a warm wind coming from the Coast into the frigid Interior.  It doesn't really matter that the term in popular usage now is mostly found only east of the Rockies and that it has fallen out of use on the Coast; the fact of the matter is that's where the term was born; and teh same air mass that's torrentially wet on the Coast is the one that, after drying out as it crosses teh multiple mountain ranges between there and the Great Plains, that is the drying Chinook wind of the Plains/Prairies.  Same story in the Yukon, where a warming wind from the Coast is called a Chinook even today.  The myth that the word applies only east of the Rockies is as much a myth as the notion that it means "snow-eater", which is utter bunk but widely repeated nonetheless....Skookum1 (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many sections? 

message: This article states the pineapple brings welcome warmth in the winter, but this is not quite the case. The rain on snow quickly wipes out mountain snowpack, and if colder rains don't return, leads to a summer drout (very little rain in Seattle in summer.) In addition, in 1996, a pineapple express dumped huge amounts of rain on week-old snow and the weight on the rain-laden snow caused several roofs to collapse in the storm (including a school near Woodinville), not to mention street flooding due to ice-clogged storm drains.
Pineapple expresses are not usually a good thing as this article implies.
:Sometimes neither is a coastal Chinook; and the terms I've seen/heard used interchangeably, often in reference to the same storm...Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pineapple express not welcome 

message: The www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum reference and teh aasociated as-if-factual claim that "Chinook is a Pacific Northwest Indian word meaning 'snow-eater'" I've removed as a-factual, and yet another demonstration that an allegedly reliable source is not necessariliy a good source; and as it's a forum that's coming from it's not WP:RS anyway; and note this disclaimed on the forum's main page:
:Archived forums do not necessarily reflect current scientific knowledge, theories or data. Older forums may contain outdated scientific opinion, and therefore should be regarded in a historical context. The original publication date is provided with each forum.
'Nuff said.Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "snow-eater" claim again

message: Right now, I feel as if the article gives too much reference to the Canadian/U.S. Northwest viewpoint. Would it be possible to incorporate Alaska and/or central European viewpoints into the article? Right now, it seems as if the European chinooks in particular are overlooked. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering that the term Chinook IS used in Alaska (and the Yukon), of course description of the areas it affects and particular figures for that region should be included.  To my knowledge, however, the term "Chinook" is NOT uesd in Europe, where such winds are called Foehn winds (in German, anyway; whether there's a similar term in Czech or Magyar I wouldn't know).  The Foehn wind's effects aren't anywhere near as dramatic, also (if the comparison is only to the Alberta/Montana or Alaska/Yukon Chinook.  Only winds called by this name are relevant to your globalize template; similar winds by other names are other winds, and not relevant to this article.  You do have me wondering about Telegraph Creek, Prince George etc but I'm not exposed to media from that region, although doubtless similar effects do occur.  NB the outflow winds as well call 'em now on the BC Coast, the South Coast now, were at one time known as the squamish wind or "the squamish", which is still used, I guess in Washington state etc; a similar wind in Alaska is known as the williwaw, but I'm unsure if that's Alaska Panhandle only or might also involve the Copper River etc...Skookum1 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside references 

message: One critical aspect of chinook formation is overlooked in the explanation given in the article. There is a lot of energy (latent heat) tied up in changing the phase of water from gas to liquid.  This 'latent heat' is released as water condenses (liquid water has a lower energy state than gaeous water).  
As wet masses of air are forced up the windward side of the mountains, they cool adiabatically and water vapor condenses, releasing the latent heat of evaporation of that water into the air. Thus the air that arrives at the top of the mountain has less water in it, but is warmer than one would expect from adiabatic cooling alone.  As the air is forced back down the leeward side, the relative humidity drops (as the air warms), and the air is warmed.  Without the extra heat from the water vapor, the air would not be warmer on the leeward side than on the windward side rather it would undergo the same amount of adiabatic warming as it did cooling and would be the same temperature. Bobcat167 (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical explanation lacking 

message: As someone who lives many hours north of Grande Prairie, I changed where the article had stated the northern boundaries of the chinook is. I live in the High Level region and we get at least one chinook wind annually, and this is several hundred kilometers north of Grande Prairie, the city initially named as the northernmost point of chinook.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.159.33 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations 

message: My mother, born 1926 in Vancouver, was taught by her mother and grandmother, plus in school, about the Chinook winds, named by the French fur traders in the 1600's or so.  The winds generally have nothing to do with major air systems from far out in the Pacific, but mostly just from the usual coastal breezes common to so many large water bodies, including the great lakes.  
The NW Washington city of Bellingham and the city of Vancouver, BC, Canada across the border are on right on the coast, protected by a mass of islands, some rain forest ones. The two cities are in a fertile farming and dairy production mountain valley rising abruptly into the Cascade Range which is highlighted by the Mount Baker mile-high active volcano on the American side.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Baker  As you get near the Cascade foothills, you frequently see clouds hovering close to the ground - strange sight.
 
This valley is the pathway to the ocean of the Fraser River, thus the Fraser River Valley.  The warming moisture heavy winds gently and almost constantly, all through the year, travel up the valley, sweeping the horrible non-PC Vancouver smog up to Chilliwack where the smog pools up and becomes dense again as the wind sweeps up the mountain sides.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_River
I live near the border, nearly next to the Cascade foothills and mountains beyond.  In the second week of March this year, we got quite a few days of drizzle, but the mountains accumulated ten feet of fresh snow - that is how much moisture can be lost during the winter from a wet enough weather system moving in.  On the far side of the mountains, after the winds had lost their moisture and been warmed as a result, they, now dry, swooped down the eastern slopes creating the warming Chinooks of the prairie regions of the northern plains.   
Now in that narrow section of this stretch of coastal region, the weather is very moist, high humidity, cloudy and rainy/misty nearly year round, but the temperatures are very mild, seldom below freezing, seldom snowing more than twice in a winter, usually above 40 during the winters, seldom over 80 in the summer, rarely more than 3 days over 90.  This is a climate of the Northwest "socks and sandals", hoodies, windbreakers and billed caps (to keep the mist off your face) most the year round.  
So you could say that the breezes bring a relative winter warmth of different kinds, wet to us, dry to the east of the mountains.  In California, San Fransisco has similar weather.  All along the California mountain coastline, there is rain as the wet air rises, then harsh desert as the moisture-stripped winds descend.  Down there, the winds off the mountains is called the Diablo wind (devil wind) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_wind
On the article page, there is some strange suggestion that the article be globalized.  Nonsense.  The winds are only called Chinook and Diablo in the Western North American continent.  Now, the PHENOMENA is a recognized pattern found anywhere in the world where there are mountains and the prevailing winds dump moisture on the mountains and foster warm dry regions on the far sides.  This type of weather pattern is known by many names the entire world over -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind and click on Local examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind#Local_examples 
So the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind provides the "universalizing" of the weather pattern concept.  Any more would be in the weather section of Wikipedia covering how various weather systems are named which is possibly fairly constant and definitely scientifically descriptive.  
Nice place to live, even if there was too much sun the past two summers and this winter has had way too many days below 40 degrees.  172.190.17.204 (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin & Location & Nature of the NorthWest Pacific Coastal Side of the Chinooks 

message: The "Chinook wind" seen in BC, WA, OR and CA is a completely different weather phenomenon that that on the eastern slopes of the Rockies, which has an alternate name, Pineapple Express. Because of this, we should make no mention of the Pineapple Express usage except for a hatnote at the top of the page (This article is about a weather phenomenon east of the Rocky Mountains. For the phenomenon on the US and Canadian Pacific coast, see Pineapple express). Who's with me? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pineapple Express is not the same thing as a coastal Chinook; the term originates on the lower Columbia and interior OR/WA, as its name suggests.  A Pineapple Express, as that term is used in BC (not as it is used in California) can cause a Chinook in the Interior and thereafter in Alberta, but "removing" all those other places from the article because of the misperception that this is purely an Albertan/Great Plains phenomenon is just "not on" and just plain wrong.  That Albertans picked up their mispronunciation from the French fur trader dudes is kinda funny/ironic also.....but as indicated by the First Nations legend of the Lil'wat from BC, the term is well-known in BC and the same wind/weather system has a different effect on the west side of the mountains than it does on the east; but it's not like Alberta and Montana own the word.  Anything but.Skookum1 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest keeping BC, WA, OR and CA out of this article 

message: Many people who do not have a technical background are mystified, or at least ambiguous, in their understanding of the heat pump concept. Ironically they accept the concept of refrigeration almost intuitively. Yet saying that a heat pump is a referigerator in reverse does nothing to help the situation.
So I thought, is there an example of the heat pump effect in nature?
Best that I could to date is consider that there is a hidden ("latent" is too ambiguous) air standard cycle (Based on the Brayton/ Reverse Brayton cycle) action in a Chinook wind.
If dry air were to approach a mountain range during the night at atmospheric pressure and 20 degree C, cool by expansion to one half an atmosphere, to a temperature below ground temperature, then the heat content of that air mass should increase. Then if that air mass were to compress back to one atmosphere, over this ficticious mountain range, the temperature should be greater than the 20 degree starting temperature.
This can't be considered for the main article unless some citations can be located - no luck so far in either the Thermodynamic or meteorlogical pages??
Pete318 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Heat Pump Effect Hidden in a Chinook Wind? 

message: The "How Chinooks occur" section states that moist and dry air have different adibatic rates. That's not true. The real reason the temperature of air going over a mountain in a foen wind increases in temperature on the leeward side more than it decreases in temperature on the windward side is because condensation releases heat. Moist air that is not moist enough to condense will decrease in temperature from going over the mountain the same amount as completely dry air would. Blackbombchu (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The latent heat released from the water vapour in the air is significant and very likely conceals any (air standard) heat pump effect as well as any effect due to differences in specific heat constants. Moist and dry air have different heat content and heat transfer properties (see table), but the difference is minimal and probably not significant with the Chinook effect. The constant pressure and constant volume specific heat constants (used in PV^k)are usually for dry gases (air) without any vapour. Pete318 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious error 

message: Is this wind a hot and dry wind or is it tropical? The beginning of this article should be clear about things like that. I think that folk-etymology is less important. I suppose the question is answered, but I think it should be more direct instead of reading like an interesting piece of trivia. Sam Tomato (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tropical? Wherever did you get that idea?  All instances of the Chinook are temperate coastal or temperate continental, when not Subarctic as with Whitehorse, Fort St John et al.  That the word itself is "folk etymology" and not a formal weather term means that descriptions of the meanings are not "trivia", they are intrinsic to the article.Skookum1 (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hot and dry or tropical? 

message: The use of the word adiabatic throughout this entire article is not correct. The definition of an adiabatic process is one in which there is no heat transfer. Therefore, the term 'adiabatic heating' and 'adiabatic cooling' are not correct. I agree that the process is adiabatic and that the temperature does change, but 'temperature increase' is not the same as 'heating up' and a 'temperature decrease' is not the same as 'cooling down.' I would like to substantially edit the article to fix the wording and improve the overall explanation. Before I do that, however, I would like to hear from other editors for any major input (or potential objections). JCMPC (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone else considered how to proceed with the term 'adiabatic heating?' I am not a meteorologist or climatologist, so I do not want to inadvertently go against either of these fields by making edits myself. Regarding the presence of the term in the main figure, I would change it myself, but I know very little about editing and posting images to articles. Much thanks for anyone willing to help out. JCMPC (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIG problem with the word 'adiabatic' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Chinook wind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530134110/http://www.1st-hand-history.org/siwash/156.jpg to http://www.1st-hand-history.org/siwash/156.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530134109/http://www.1st-hand-history.org/siwash/157.jpg to http://www.1st-hand-history.org/siwash/157.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530134111/http://www.1st-hand-history.org/siwash/158.jpg to http://www.1st-hand-history.org/siwash/158.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323124648/http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/learningresources/facts/superweather.html to http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/learningresources/facts/superweather.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've lived in Calgary my entire life and have never heard of any of the folklore items said to be familiar to most Southern Albertans. I've asked around, and no one I know has heard these tales. They are likely popular among a specific family, social group, or smaller community at best. 
Tklow (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly bogus Folklore 

message: Fohn wind 41.13.78.213 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: I don't know if this deserves inclusion, but there is a short story called "The Chinook" by Richard Broderick, pp. 3~11 in Where Past Meets Present:  Modern Colorado Short Stories, edited by James B. Hemesath, University Press of Colorado: Niwot, Colorado, 1994; originally published in Night Sale, by Robert Broderick, 1982 ((New Rivers Press).  164.47.179.32 (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture / literature