Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Lightning0.jpg This is the talk page of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article here.
Portal.svg Quick links:
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology:
Top priorities in bold

Cscr-candidate.svg

     Other candidates:

Johnstown flood of 1977[edit]

Hello, please take a look at the new article Johnstown flood of 1977.

Johnstown flood of 1936[edit]

Hello, please also take a look at the new article Johnstown flood of 1936.

Off the wall[edit]

While it is obvious that the wikipedia isn't about propounding strange new theories there is something about the closed shop in meteorology that should at least be born in mind.

I took this from the article on thunder: In the 20th century a consensus evolved that thunder must begin with a shock wave in the air due to the sudden thermal expansion of the plasma in the lightning channel.[1] The temperature inside the lightning channel, measured by spectral analysis, varies during its 50 μs existence, rising sharply from an initial temperature of about 20,000 K to about 30,000 K, then dropping away gradually to about 10,000 K. The average is about 20,400 K (20,100 °C; 36,300 °F).[2] This heating causes a rapid outward expansion, impacting the surrounding cooler air at a speed faster than sound would otherwise travel. The resultant outward-moving pulse is a shock wave,[3] similar in principle to the shock wave formed by an explosion, or at the front of a supersonic aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder

The problem is that with modern photography just pushing the bounds of timing at the moment and the difficulties of presuming the obvious because we can reproduce what seems to happen. Are we teaching anyone to overlook a different analysis. Shock waves are already present in thunderstorms and sonic booms are readily generated in the same pressure differentials. We really have not described yet how or why lightning causes thunder. or if it causes all thunder.

Electricity doesn't ignite the atmosphere in any way; surely? For the chance of it starting a fire that only god could put out just hasn't happened yet. Why not? Rain? Really?? -Weatherlawyer (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"ignite the atmosphere"? No. Rapidly warm the atmosphere causing a shockwave that we heard as thunder? Yes. I've been a meteorologist for over 20 years, and I've never heard another plausible explanation for thunder. What actually causes lightning in the first place? Well, that's another story... Guy1890 (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of meteorology and History of meteorology[edit]

Hi:

I was wondering why History of meteorology is a redirection toward the section history of the article Meteorology and not toward Timeline of meteorology. Furthermore, why Timeline of meteorology should not be renamed History of meteorology and expanded with the section History of the article meteorology?

Pierre cb (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Good question - I would support a move to the history of meteorology but we would need to clean the article up significantly.Jason Rees (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2016[edit]

It has been proposed in this section that Timeline of meteorology be renamed and moved to History of meteorology. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached. Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil, at Talk:Timeline of meteorology#Requested move 25 March 2016. Pierre cb (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

reactivate Aerology[edit]

Aerology should not be redirected! See my remark there on the Talk-Page ArchibaldWagner (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Hello,
Please note that Ozone layer, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Cloud Description Terminology[edit]

I don't know if there are defined and generally or scientifically accepted terms for cloud types, but there is little consistency within Wikipedia. This is not a difficult subject. Cloud shape: Cumulus appear as small balls of cloud accumulated into a cloud.

            Stratus is any cloud that is in the form of a wide spread layer.
            Cirrus can be a cloud that looks similar to a horse's mane blown by the wind BUT more importantly they consist of ice rather than agglomerated water molecules. Any cloud consisting of ice is a cirrus regardless of appearance. "Ice crystals" is redundant. Any ice (except in very rare circumstances) is simply crystallized water or agglomerations of crystallized water. 

In temperatures above freezing, if the number of water molecules agglomerated is very small, these are not visible and perhaps can still possibly be called water vapour. As the number of molecules per agglomeration increases, this is haze and with further increase they can be seen as white cloud. When the number is even larger still, they are seen as gray and eventually look black. The color of a cloud is not dependent upon the "thickness" of it. A cloud can be thousands of feet or meters thick and still appear white. It will however lower the light intensity if it "blocks" the sun. Water vapour and steam is invisible because they are single (or very few) molecules of water spaced apart. What most people call steam (coming out the kettle) is condensed agglomerations of water molecules. True steam is the invisible portion that sometimes can be noticed as it exits from a vigorously boiling kettle with a short spout which doesn't cool the steam to its condensation temperature before it exits.

          Lenticular is a bean shaped or stretched bean shaped cloud but is usually used to describe a cloud formed by the wind at or above the top of a mountain/hill and also to the evenly spaced clouds that sometimes also form behind the mountain peak in a similar manner to the ripples formed behind a pebble in a stream.
         Nimbus is combined to any cloud that produces (visible) rain, eg nimbostratus, cumulonimbus, or even stratocumulonimbus. 
A cloud with diffuse, ill defined edges is simply a cloud.

If individual cumulus merge to the point that there are no or few spaces between them, they are then called stratocumulus. Similarly stratocirrus or cirrostratus

        Alto describe a high cloud of any type. In the tropics altocumulus are common. High clouds formed of ice crystals are altocirrus. In cold climes low cirrus cloud can form.

This writer invites the correction and editing of his material as he suffers from dyslexia ipso lazimus maximus and too much curiosity. lol.

Ecstatist (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
"Any cloud consisting of ice is a cirrus regardless of appearance." That's actually not true, since a lot of (most?) precipitation starts out as ice in clouds that aren't confined to near the surface of the Earth. Cumulonimbus clouds pretty frequently contain ice in them as well. In meteorology, alto is actually used for mid-level cloudiness. I don't think that I've ever heard of altocirrus. Guy1890 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
If you are interested in cloud classification and terminology, you may enjoy our rather detailed List of cloud types as a starting outline. --Mark viking (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

List of cloud types[edit]

Hi, and before all thanks for providing info on clouds. Very interesting.

  • I have changed the List of cloud types#Cloud classification: Order of listed types section to make it a bit more understandable of what's to come for profanes. I would suggest level 4 for the TOC.
  • What I don't understand (I'm not English native speaker) is the expression The genus types within each étage are arranged features and mother clouds are arranged in approximate order of frequency of occurrence: is it right? Just to check.
  • Why was the numbering of the genus and nimbostratus? I used them myself for the photos, but I dunno whether any other use.
  • I changed also a few photos which were not in the correspondent genus (Tadrart Akakus from cirrocum. to cirrus), but I'm afraid it's not the only one if I'm right. I've been bold and changed more, but about File:Cirrus and Altostratus undulatus.JPG (Altocumulus stratiformis perlucidus undulatus clouds merging into altostratus opacus, with higher layer of cirrus fibratus) I'm not sure because the caption says one thing (ACs) and the name of the photo says something else (AS).
  • I ordered the photos as they appear in the list. I wasn't sure as they bear species and variants named later, but I guess they should be better presented in order of species regardless of variant or genitus or other modifiers. This was especially a mess when a photo is of various genus, and especially difficult for List of cloud types#Genus altocumulus.
  • Some genus-species-variant mentioned in the photo are not in the text: Cirrus spissatus undulatus [I put a (3) infix] and Cumulus mediocris arcus (84). Is this right?
  • Approx. the same issue if I understand well the gen-spec-var use as in Botany or Zoology: shouldn't Stratocumulus cumulogenitus of the photo be either Stratocumulus stratiformis cumulogenitus, or Stratocumulus lenticularis cumulogenitus, or Stratocumulus castellanus cumulogenitus?
  • Could altocumulus stratiformis of the photo be characterised with a variant to assign a number? Many thanks. ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 11:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Being bold again, I changed the way of stating etymologies and added three tables, all at List of cloud types#WMO genera. Now my question and proposal:

  • Why the listing for some Pattern-based separated for species in some (fibratus) and for pattern in others (List of cloud types#Genus stratocumulus)? This can be seen in List of cloud types#Genus cirrus: fibratus intortus or vertebratus can be in their own group like radiatus and duplicatus
  • We need to explain the meaning of mutatus; I read the one for genitus, but at the very end. Beyond my knowledge...
  • Shouldn't mutatus and genitus go always in the same order (alphabetically, better; or by the order of the HighMedLowVert: is it already? why not mentioned?). Seems to be messy.
  • Why number 86 is not in order, between 83 and 84?
  • calvus and capillatus not in List of cloud types#WMO species

Sorry for being so picky. When I have time I do it myself, I need to read also the WMO PDF first. ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 12:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

North American winters[edit]

I have found that it is significantly easier for me to find governmental information pertaining to the United States than it is for me to find governmental information pertaining to Canada. Governmental sources are where I have found the majority of the 'meteorological' information I've used, but Canada's meteorological service does not appear to have as much information as the U.S. National Weather Service in terms of summaries / event reviews. As such, I feel like the "North American winter" series is really a "United States winter" series for the most part. Any good sources I can use from year-to-year or that can otherwise help me fill in the gaps for Canada would be greatly appreciated. Dustin (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Climatology was never my forte. It is true though that Canadian historical records are very sparse compared to the USA, but that's mostly due to their observation network(s) being not as robust as the USA's many networks. The following links are all that I could readily find in my bookmarks from my current work:
I don't know if there are any non-governmental resources for this kind of info available up in Canada, like there are in the USA. There used to be a Canadian version of the The Weather Channel up there that might have some useful info (if they're still around), and I don't know if there are any useful Canadian media sources for this kind of info as well. Good luck... Guy1890 (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Opinion statements[edit]

I have been removing opinion-based statements from the climate sections for a year now, being that subjective opinions are not supposed to be passed off as fact. An example edit is shown below.

Original:
X city has a humid subtropical climate with cool winters and warm summers.
New version:
X city has a humid subtropical climate with average winter highs of 12 °C (54 °F) and average summer highs of 31 °C (88 °F).

My reason for doing this is that opinions are not to be passed off as fact, without indicating that a reliable source holds those opinions. What temperatures are considered cold, warm, etc. is highly subjective, and passing off a temperature as inherently being one of those words reeks of NPOV violations. For example, is 72 °F (22 °C) cool, mild, or warm? I personally say it's mild, but other people might say it's cool or warm, and none of us is lying.

My project, however, has not gone unopposed. Users have reverted my edits, calling them vandalism, and I've gotten into a few edit wars over the terms. The one article I've seen used to justify the inclusions of these opinion statements is Felt temperature classification, which is an unsourced article about something that only appears on Wikipedia and mirrors thereof. There are no sources to suggest that the "felt temperature classification" (read: one person's subjective opinions about temperature) exists, so it might classify as A7, A11, or G3.

It is a commonly known fact that George Washington became president in 1789, and that cannot be disputed by other people. It is also an indisputable fact that downtown Los Angeles has average summer highs of 84 °F (29 °C); you cannot disagree with data like that. However, whether downtown LA's summers are cool, mild, warm, or hot is up for debate (I personally say "mild"), not to mention that I, being a warmer-weather person, often disagree with the existing opinion statements, preferring to bump them down a category or two.

In short, a lot of climate sections contain opinion statements about a place's climate, such as "cool winters", and without stating that a particular notable, reliably sourced climatologist or classification system classifies it to be that way, it appears to pass the opinion statements off as fact, and that violates WP:NPOV.

I hope I'm not crazy, and I hope someone else sees things the way I do.

Thank you,

YITYNR My workWhat's wrong? 11:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That looks like an interesting little project @YITYNR: and one that is of high value to Wikipedia. I have asked for felt temperature classification to be deleted since the only major content has come from User:Gouthamswa, who has not been seen on Wikipedia since making the article in 2013.Jason Rees (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Jason Rees: Thank you; your input is much appreciated. I totally agree with G3ing the article, and thanks for supporting my project. :) YITYNR My workWhat's wrong? 11:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It is true that words like "cool", "warm", "hot", "windy", "breezy", etc. can be very subjective terms. When I used to work for the NWS, there was a movement to eventually automatically add these kind of phrases to the official forecast if certain internal NWS thresholds for them were met. I personally never understood the need to tell people that it was going to be "very windy" when we were telling them (at the same time) that sustained winds of 30-40 mph were expected, but oh well. Wind chill and heat index charts are probably the obvious exception to this kind of subjectivity.
As long as we're saying exactly what the sources in these climate sections are saying, I really don't think that it's that big of a deal, but what "YITYNR" has apparently been doing just seems to me to be more accurate & less subjective overall. Guy1890 (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Climate comparison template[edit]

I have an idea for a template, but not the expertise to create it. Climate of Minnesota has a sortable table comparing monthly average temperature and precipitation of various cities across the state. It's great, because you can determine which places have the coldest or warmest temperature in each month. (Tables on many other states' climate pages, such as California, aren't sortable because they display daily highs and lows instead of means.)

However, it would be even better if the table would display background colors like those in {{Weather box}}, so that the temperature differences are reflected by differences in color. Perhaps the unit conversion could also be automated. Would anyone be interested in creating such a template? — Eru·tuon 23:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Input needed[edit]

At Template talk:Convert § Slash as range separator, there is a discussion on how highs and lows in climate comparison tables (such as the table in Climate of California § Temperatures) should be displayed: whether with slashes (for example, 83/63) as is the common practice, or pipes (83|63 or 83 | 63), a format used by, for instance, Weather Underground. Input from members of this WikiProject would be welcome. — Eru·tuon 19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I put a demonstration in my sandbox (permalink) showing how the temperature range table from Climate of California looks using a slash (old system), and how it looks using a pipe (proposed new system). Which is wanted? Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for creating the mock ups. As displayed on my browser, the pipe symbol and spacing applied look very much like a sans-serif digit "1", with entries then looking like 5 digit numbers. At this point, I would prefer the slash as visually distinct from any digit, and also as traditional practice. The pipe could work if there was sufficient space on each side, or made a significantly larger font size, so as to prevent it from ever being mistaken for a digit. --Mark viking (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)