From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


Historical discussions are found in the following links: Talk:Meteorology/Archive 01

Weather forecasting vs. Meteorology?[edit]

I'm having a hard time understanding what the difference is between this article and Weather forecasting, which appears to be about the same subject. Is there some reason these are two separate articles with a fair amount of duplicated content? If so, what is it? If not, should these articles be merged? -- Foogod 21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Meteorology is the study...Weather forecasting is the application.
Hard Raspy Sci 08:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. No merge pleeze, my forecast is...this article is nowhere near completion, and is likely to expand...

Ok, it seems there's some consensus that they should be separate articles, so I won't propose a merge, but the distinction as things are written still seems a bit fuzzy to me (I certainly understand the difference between a science and its application, but I was noting that both articles seemed to talk about both aspects, which is why it was confusing that there's two articles. Hopefully this can be improved). -- Foogod 23:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur that they should remain separate articles --though improvements to the articles should be made.
It raises an issue with the sharp, distinct division of atmospheric sciences to physics and chemistry; both are subdivisions of meteorology (and climatology) and are not fundamentally separate. There is overlap, the division to physics or chemistry refers to the respective principles in isolation. So they are distinguishable but the complexity and subtleties are poorly reflected on Wikipedia. The classic division of meteorology refers not to the field of science, rather: research and forecasting (operational).
So, weather forecasting is meteorology (yes, the application of, but not a separate entity), as are atmospheric physics and chemistry, they're simply arbitrary subdivisions. Even climatology isn't quite reflected well on here, as it is just meteorological principles over a set time period (usually but not necessarily longer term), tending more towards statistical methods. As presented now the articles seem to mistake weather and climate for meteorology and climatology, they aren't quite equivalent. Evolauxia 08:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree both articles need work, even though this one was rated as a "B" class article after peer review. Each subject in their own right contains loads of information, as such each should be separate. Of course overlapping will occur, hopefully not too much... --Hard Raspy Sci 01:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Added information to the forecast section from an HPC study from a couple winters ago, as well as TPC/HPC studies of hurricane track error from the last few years. Thegreatdr 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

New page, plus troughs and ridges[edit]

I've recently created the page Block (meteorology). I'm not sure where the best place to put it in this article is, so feel free to find a spot for it, and also to edit it with more information, etc. Also, we could probably use more information for Ridge (meteorology) and Trough (meteorology) if anyone can think of some good stuff to put on there. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why no mention of atmospheric pollution dispersion modeling?[edit]

Many of the worldwide leading scientists in the fields of atmospheric air pollution dispersion modeling and air quality modeling are meteorologists and they are also members of the American Meteorological Society. In their applied meteorology programs, many universities worldwide teach undergraduate and postgraduate courses in air pollution dispersion modeling. Why is this subject not even mentioned in this article? - mbeychok 23:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well there is a page on this: Atmospheric dispersion modeling which is in the meterology category. I don't think it is appropriate to include all meteorology related topics in this article. I suppose there could be a See also section including this though. --NHSavage 23:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
NHSavage, thank you for your response. I know about Atmospheric dispersion modeling because I wrote it about a week ago and I linked it to the meteorology category. However, that does'nt really answer my question. Since meteorologists play a leading role in the important field of air pollution dispersion modeling, don't you think its worth discussing that fact in this article on meteorology? I mean more than just a "See also" link or just an "External" link to some website. - mbeychok 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I've glanced at the ADM article and it looks ok so far, however the first thing I see is Gaussian mathematics as part of the article. Don't worry, thats not a problem, its just says--Physics. Not that I mind one way or another, but the article might steer more in the direction of atmospheric physics or atmospheric science. And those articles do need help (one may still be a stub). Go ahead, and incorporate a section or into an appropriate section in meteorology or all three... --Hard Raspy Sci 04:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Institutions of meteorology/atmospheric science[edit]

I think the section on Institutions of meteorology/atmospheric science should be made into a new article List of atmospheric science instutions. Thoughts?--NHSavage 08:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a fine idea to me. -Ottergoose 02:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts - perhaps a link to Category:Meteorological institutions and stations would be better? It is far more comprehensive. There may be some ones from the list on this page missing but categories are easier to maintain. Then again perhaps we should have both?--NHSavage 14:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag Removed[edit]


--geoWIZard-Passports 09:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Whether or not the article is perfect, it does not need to be tagged since it is under heavy scrutiny and heavy editing. Right now let's focus on the article, and no uneccessary tags, please. "If you can fix it, fix it, don't tag it!" -- Hard Raspy Sci 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Meteorologic oceanography[edit]

Please join discussion of Meteorologic oceanography in Talk:Oceanography#Meteorologic_oceanography. `'mikkanarxi 01:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Timeline (in article) moved as per peer review[edit]

I have moved the timeline out of the History section as advised from peer review. I would agree with the review, and have moved the data into the Timeline of meteorology to preserve the nicely found dates and persons by wiki-authors and editors... -- Hard Raspy Sci 01:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Topical and Sectional Improvements needed[edit]

The article as it stands is about 50/50. 50% creepy and 50% great. I am going to propose a direction here so that the article can be improved by listing its pros and cons. Feel free to modify this as needed.

(as of Dec. 31, '06)

Intro. Paragraph Excellent, concise, very descriptive, does not need changing Keep
History of meteorology Generally pretty good, may need style improvements, content ok Keep
Weather forecasting Generally, ok, or needs updating Keep
Meteorology and climatology Pure crap, no refs, etc. *Dump*
Meteorological topics and phenomena This is really what the article should be about, but there is no writing here. Add!!
Institutions of meteorology/atmospheric science Ok Keep
See also OK, Nav boxes should be here, easy enough Keep
References Need more of these !! ADD!!
External links OK Keep

Proposed new sections

  • Atmospheric circulation
  • Atmospheric modelling
  • Equipment of Meteorology
  • Observational Meteorology
  • Atmospheric patterns and oscillations
  • Hydrometeorology
  • Atmospheric layers ??
  • and maybe others

It looks like there are alot of sections already, there really isn't that much writing beyond the first three parts. I created the Links to other keywords in meteorology box (years ago) with the intention that it would ultimately disappear by acting as a reference of sorts, and it was hoped that those keywords would get spread out into the entire article (if possible). Thoughts, ideas welcome... --Hard Raspy Sci 16:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I felt like a section was missing I added: Meteorology subclassifications
to express more depth than what the article previously had, and to provide section for some above subsections to reside.... - HRS IAM 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Science fields?[edit]

Yeah, this article has lots of useful info on meteorology, but there is no mention of related science/job fields. It'll be great if someone could add that in. --John010117 05:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Inline references?[edit]

As a gesture of good will, I'll give you all until May 1 before I drop this article to start class. It is in sore need of inline references. There is only ONE in the whole article. Thegreatdr 12:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It got rated a "B" because this article went through one round of peer review and was improved but then the edits stopped. I put up a suggested guideline (see above discussion section), but nobody has really stepped up to the plate, including myself, I have been too busy recently. Hard Raspy Sci 05:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
And down it goes to Start. Maybe a new peer review is in order. Thegreatdr 17:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Enhance Climatic or Atmospheric Patterns[edit]

Could you please enhance this material, rendering it of global applicability. I just dropped in to check something West African and notice your Siberian Express, Gulf Stream, Pineapple Express, etc. are incomplete. What has been done is good. It is just that it would be so much more encyclopedic to have worldwide coverage. Could you please add the rest of the terminology and description, so your weather patterns apply to the whole planet. Thank you. Gallador 03:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary tag[edit]

Why is this article still tagged as Uncategorized? Biscuittin 09:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge issue[edit]

See talk page: Talk:Meteorology/Books.

Properly noted here by HRS IAM 16:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


This article is writen way to advanced for the average public who are just discovering the science of meteorology. I know that the person who wrote this, I myself and several other people know what they are talking about, but it confused the heck out of some people i know. Juliancolton 13:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree (see my comment below). Needs more focus on becoming a good quality summary style article. Donama (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Summaries needed for the in-detail linked articles[edit]

I came looking for information about how weather balloons are used in meteorology, but couldn't find any. I think this is because there is a lack of summaries for the detailed article links in the "weather forecasting" section. See WP:Summary advice. --Donama (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that Weather balloon basically describes what they are but not how their information is used. Maybe Weather forecasting has relevant info, but it's not obvious how it relates to balloons? (SEWilco (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
See if radiosonde has what you're looking for. They trail from weather balloons, gathering information as they ascend. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Can someone write a section on meteo-sensitivity in people? I'm not sure there's such a word in English, but I hope you understand what I mean (it's like when some people can't sleep when the atmospheric pressure changes etc.). Has it ever been researched by anyone? Thanx. KNewman (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


A. It is called "bio-meteorology." B. Fog is not technically a type of precipitation. It is simply a cloud. Often, drizzle (a precipitation type) can fall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, virga... just randomly giving SAT type answers to random thoughts. —Will research for food (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Confused nationality?[edit]

"In 1021, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), an Iraqi scientist, introduces the scientific method in his Book of Optics."

I do not believe Iraq existed as a nation in 1021. The biography page for this man lists him as being Arab or possibly Persian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article Iraq confirms that the name has been in use at least since the 6th century. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, why is this important? —Will research for food (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

'Issues' tag[edit]

I have tried to do a little re-structuring to help address issues. If I have made any blunders feel free to revert. Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead doesn't adequately cover the content of this article. Now that the order of sections is more logical, the lead appears to be the page's main flaw right now. There are paragraphs that are unreferenced as well. Once those issues are taken care of, it could be submitted for GA. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, I'm no expert whatsoever, just a casual reader! Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Even better, actually. How understandable is the article to you, the way it is written right now? If it's too technical, an effort to explain things better within the article would be needed as well as what was mentioned in my previous comments. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Pretty good. Your recent work has helped greatly to shape it. Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Numerical weather prediction[edit]

This section is substantial. But there is also a separate article bearing that same title which is relatively small. I suspect that most of the information should be transferred from here (Meteorology) into that (NWP) article, and that the residual Meteorology/NWP subsection here should have a 'main|Numerical weather prediction' tag. Sound reasonable? Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be done. If it is, we'll need to copy the lead from the NWP article over to this one, but make sure the comments are referenced. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I refined the tag to be mainly a reference problem after reorganizing information within, and adding information to, the lead of the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ten paragraphs/passages are left which need references. Once that's done, we can elevate the article back to B class, remove the tag from the main page, and submit the article for GA. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Down to eight. Thegreatdr (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your work. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Down to five. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Might the history section be too long? It seems to be getting on for half the article, and yet there is also a "main|Timeline of meteorology". So (in an ideal world!) shouldn't this 'history' be pruned a little, letting the "Timeline..." carry most of the historical substance? Just a thought... Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I significantly shortened the content, and reordered the sections. It seemed off that half of it was organized chronologically, while half was organized by concept. Now it's all organized by concept, with events listed chronologically in each section. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Instead of the picture above, I prefer following picture:

Isobaren bei Orkan Dutch txt.png

In addition, I made a new picture showing the wind direction and heating along the isobars. Perhaps it can be included aswell:

Windmovement on weathermaps.JPG
I don't know...the top image is okay, but if we were going to include a fictitious synoptic map I'd go with the one at extratropical cyclone (File:Uk-cyclone-2.png); this one here is missing the "kink" in the isobars I'd expect near fronts. As far as the bottom image, it is very unclear what it is meant to depict. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 15:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hiring of broadcast weatherpersons[edit]

In the media, however, weather forecasters are often hired for their television persona, not their forecasting accuracy.[1]

A critique of people showing weather forecasts ("weatherpersons") and the hiring practices of the media is inappropriate for this article for several reasons. First, there is the blog issue; it is the opinion of one or two people, not necessarily an authoritative source or a person knowledgeable in the field, and definitely not peer-reviewed. Second, it gives the "Meteorologists" section a decidedly negative POV towards weather persons. Third and lastly, this is an article about meteorology and meteorologists, not about television reporters who may or not even be meteorologists.

We probably need an article weatherperson or weather reporter; this sort of critical passage would be much more appropriate there.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What's missing[edit]

I dropped by and found what I think is a reasonably complete, good article. Why is this still categorized as a C class article? I've seen worse efforts punched up to B level. TMLutas (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Per your comments, I upgraded the article to B class. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources[edit]

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the page history, and found 11 edits by Jagged 85 in July 2008. Tobby72 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

While it's good to have a head's up, this article was substantially improved after that date so there is only a slight chance any of those edits survived. If someone notices an issue, it will be fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

suggestion for new section[edit]

Nowadays there are several predictions done by using Data mining. And I'm interesting in writing an article related that. I would like to know about suggestions about it, "data mining in meteorology". I would like to know your suggestions on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inoshika (talkcontribs) 14:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This barely appears to be out of the experimental phase, so no, I don't think a section is called-for in the main article. Perhaps a (sourced) sentence, but nothing more. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 15:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

too technical[edit]

This sentence is too technical for the lede as is. We could a) keep it out of the lede as it now is, or b) explain what the troposphere is. Both avenues would avoid being over-technical in the lede.

The majority of Earth's observed weather is located in the troposphere.[2][3]

Props. makeswell (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. If someone doesn't know what the troposphere is, they can click the wikilink, where it is explained clearly. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 08:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

not sure where is may go[edit]

"The Science of the Glory; One of the most beautiful phenomena in meteorology has a surprisingly subtle explanation. Its study also helps to predict the role that clouds will play in climate change" by H. Moysés Nussenzveig Scientific American January 5, 2012 (1.2012,page 68 to 73 in-print) (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

See Glory (optical phenomenon). Vsmith (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.  :-) (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)