Talk:Meteorology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.	Physics Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part 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 at its talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.

Meteorology is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Meteorology has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Are Suggestions Encyclopedic? 2 Shouldn't this article contain information on how meteologists do what they do? 3 Whew 4 major removal 5 more major editing 6 talking to myself 7 Trimming 8 Relevancy of chaos theory for weather science 9 Thermoscope 10 Weather forecasting vs. Meteorology? 11 New page, plus troughs and ridges 12 Why no mention of atmospheric pollution dispersion modeling? 13 Institutions of meteorology/atmospheric science 14 Cleanup Tag Removed 15 Meteorologic oceanography 16 Timeline (in article) moved as per peer review

[edit] Are Suggestions Encyclopedic?

Should predictions and suggestions be in this article? --SEWilco 03:15, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

With model output approaching oberservational data (e.g. from satellite soundings) in resolution, the sheer size of the datasets means that data mining and data management will become equally important considerations in meteorological computing. In light of the decrease in density of surface and rawinsonde observations, new algorithms have to be developed to extract similarly accurate information from satellite data, for example about cloud type and distribution. Data management will become more global in nature, with some central archives storing a large number of numerical experiments from various institutions. This data needs to have a sufficient amount of metadata attached and can then be conveniently retrieved by a WWW interface from anywhere. These new archives will alleviate the important task of comparing experiments conducted with different models, which is instrumental for their further improvement. Also, grid computing may be a interesting way to harness the power of meteorological supercomputers more effectively. Of course, international cooperation is nothing unusual in modelling, but grid computing might automate the process of running a model where the right amount of computing resources are currently available and leave scientists more time for analyzing the results.

Meteorological instrumentation that is used at the surface or in airplanes also has room for improvement. Radar and Lidar show precipitation and clouds by their effects on emitted monospectral electromagnetic waves. If radar measurements can be used to accurately determine the amount of precipitation (which as of now is only possible with rain gauges), this would be beneficial for numerical weather prediction. Lidar can be used to study clouds that are so thin that they cannot be seen by the naked eye such as certain types of cirrus filaments. The high-altitude clouds that can form from contrails may well be the key to understanding the effect of the increasing amount of air travel on global warming.

Finally, meteorologists must educate the public more about weather and climate in general. Scientifically accurate and understandable information about topics like the ozone hole, global warming, the effects of rainforest deforestation, or sea level rise must be disseminated and misinformation by industry lobbyists be countered. Particularly in Europe, which may see an increase in extreme weather events as it already has in the 1990s, the population must be educated to pay closer attention to severe weather warnings or information about other detrimental health factors such as high tropospheric ozone concentration or high levels of UV radiation. Similarly, a better infrastructure to deal with natural desasters must be developed akin to similar services in the US. It is clear that political decisionmakers in Europe will rely on scientific assessment to validate the necessity for such spending.

-I agree, this is new research, speculation and opinion. geodynamo 5 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

---

[edit] Shouldn't this article contain information on how meteologists do what they do?

Aside from the text on wind mapping, there is nothing in here.

[edit] Whew

This article needs a top to bottom overhaul, but I am not able to undertake this endeavor at the moment. For those just waiting for a good source to start off with, the University of Illinois has an excellent online guide to Meteorology: ww2010.amtos.uiuc.edu. It has everything you need to get started on rewriting the sections on current and future forecasting methods.

(also... to the previous poster: be sure to sign your comments... otherwise we can't tell who you are or when you wrote that.)--demonburrito 16:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] major removal

Without objection: subsection "Possibilities for future improvements" will be removed.--demonburrito 06:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] more major editing

I am completely rewriting the 'history' section. This is not just because I didn't like it very much, but because it appears to be entirely plagiarized.--demonburrito 09:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

oops...nevermind about the plagiarism. It realized it was just a site not using GNU license properly. I still stand by liking the timeline better (it is now more complete than timeline of meteorology).--demonburrito 10:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] talking to myself

I think this paragraph is controversial:

In the 1960s, the chaotic nature of the atmosphere was first understood by Edward Lorenz, founding the field of chaos theory. The mathematical advances achieved here later filtered back to meteorology and made it possible to describe the limits of predictability inherent in atmospheric modelling. This is known as the butterfly effect, because the growth of disturbances over time means that even one as minute as the flapping of a butterfly's wings could much later cause a large disturbance to form somewhere else.

There are other articles on this wiki that state the belief of some that a complete model of the atmosphere can be described with diff eqs, but the complexity is beyond our means for the time being. Different than "inherent unpredictability".--demonburrito 11:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, differential equations are solved numerically in weather forecasting models. However, no matter how complete and accurate the model is, uncertainty in the representation of the initial state of the atmosphere will always grow and lead to forecast errors. This is true of all chaotic systems, of which the atmosphere has been proven to be a good example. Therefore I don't think that the fact that the "atmosphere can be described by diff eqs" and stating that it is "inherent unpredictability" are contradicting each other. (see Chaos theory) PeterLean 10:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Demonburrito; I've reinserted the bit about the chaotic nature of the atmosphere because I believe that it is one of the most important aspects of atmospheric bahaviour for weather forecasting. If you feel that this theory is controversial then have a look at:

http://www.ecmwf.int/research/predictability/background/

http://wwwt.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/ens/info/ens_detbak.html

-most of the major operational forecasting centers are beginning to use ensemble forecasts to take account of the uncertainty in the forecasts arising due to the chaotic nature of the atmosphere.

But, thanks for all the work you've put in on the page; I think that it is a big improvement on what was there before.--PeterLean 11:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive reinforcement. I was beginning to think no one was watching this page.

Believe it or not, I intuitively agree with Lorenz, and have argued for the validity of his theories on many occasions. The popular books on chaos theory (like Gleick's "Chaos") in the late 80s had a big impact on my thinking, and I personally feel that time may demonstrate Lorenz to be correct as theoretical math progresses. However, having spent some time chatting on [1], I was unable to find a consensus on this issue. I worry that the paragraph may not be encyclopedic. Perhaps we can split the difference and mention chaos theory's role in the advent of ensemble forecasting, and provide a link to chaos theory?

The term 'inherent unpredictability' doesn't appear on the chaos theory page and strikes me as an oversimplification which might leave readers with wrong impressions.--demonburrito 03:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Chaos theory gives an unpredictable mathematical solution to a system, where the mathematical solution is unpredictable with respect to some exactness, but it does not mean that every solution is entirely unpredictable, just inherently so. (See Henri Poincaré or Phase space). But even this is not a great answer for all cases, however I am not sure if it is an oversimplification.

The major problem with Chaos theory is that it is a mathematical theory. Most people have a problem with comprehending that not all mathematical (real, correct, or imaginary) solutions give a solution to real physical things. While the methods may be valid and give valid solutions, they are only correct in the realm of mathematics. But, and importantly, it should be understood that Physics (mathematically speaking) is a subset of Mathematics.

Simply that means that there are solutions in math that don't work in physics, but all solutions in physics work in math! Hard Raspy Sci 02:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming

consider:

Specific: Large scale wind mapping The direction, strength, and variability of winds over various parts of the earth have been of great interest for a long time. The first large-scale wind mapping efforts were done to aid sailors who depended on winds to power their ships. In the last four decades a considerable amount of work has been done to map winds which might be used to generate power.
It is difficult to map the wind because it is a chaotic system. Weather forecasting is extremely difficult to do accurately for more than a few days. However, statistical methods can be used to predict general expectations of wind. Resolution can be low, e.g. maps of an entire continent; or high, where a specific site is assesed. High resolution maps are used for example to asses the viability of a site for wind turbines.
The inputs to the mapping process are: measured wind data and topography, and possibly other meteorological data which might relate to seasonal variation, pressure, and humidity. Humidity and temperature affect the density of the air, and thus the power produced from a given wind speed. Proximity of the sea has diurnal and seasonal effects on wind patterns. The 'WAsP' model uses a simple algorithm to predict wind over simple topography. It does not solve the Navier-Stokes equations which, in principle, give the correct answers to how the speed and direction of wind changes as it flows over 'complex' terrain.
A typical process for a large-scale wind map would take the wind data, and separate it into groups based on direction and speed. For each group, the wind is simulated using computer-based models, and the result is recorded. The results for each group are then averaged according to the frequency of that speed and direction 'bucket', giving the average wind over an area. This is only indicative, and before a wind farm is constructed, detailed local measurements are essential.
For small areas, the Navier-Stokes equations can be solved with some success, atechnique employed more often as computer power grows to match the task. With this method, the volume of air around the site of interest is cut into discrete chunks. Each is considered independently, like a pixel of a computer display. Each chunk interacts with its neighbours according to their pressure (although this can be neglected), and wind speeds. The smaller the chunk sizes, the closer the result is to reality, although large divergence is not uncommon. These models are extremely computationally expensive to run.
'Simple' terrain can be modelled using simple mass balance: if there is a hill in the way, the wind is accelerated. This is the Bernoulli Effect, and the core of the WAsP model.
Wind is powered by a temperature differential. It is slowed by obstructions and is generally stronger at high altitudes. Plains have high winds because they have few obstructions. Mountain passes have high winds mostly because they funnel high-altitude winds. Some passes have winds powered by a temperature differential between the sides of the ridges. Coastal areas have high winds because water has few obstructions and because of the temperature difference between the land and the sea. Off-shore also generally has high winds for the same reasons.

I think this is all fine work, but I also think that this is too specific to be included in the general meteorology article. I'm quoting it in entirety to preserve it on the talk page. --demonburrito 03:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relevancy of chaos theory for weather science

The term 'inherent unpredictability' doesn't appear on the chaos theory page and strikes me as an oversimplification which might leave readers with wrong impressions.--demonburrito 03:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the term 'inherent unpredictability' is inappropriate for any form of dynamics that is 'chaotic' in character. Somewhat closer would be: 'inherent decay of predictability'. In the case of a chaotic system (chaotic in the specific technical sense of chaos theory), the reliability of even the best attempt at forecast drops exponentially with the time span of the forecast. A weather forecast 3 days into the future is pretty likely to be right on the mark, these days. The likelyhood of a forecast 6 days into the future being right is much smaller than half the odds of the 3-day ahead forecast being correct.

In the article it is stated: "the growth of disturbances over time means that even one as minute as the flapping of a butterfly's wings could much later cause a large disturbance to form somewhere else." That statement is simply wrong, the butterfly image is a metaphor, it is simply wrong to take it literally. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 21:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Errm, well, hold on. The butterflys wing stuff is probably widely misunderstood, but isn't wrong. Any disturbance, even one far smaller than a butterflys wing, would eventually grown to the extent that different realisations (were that possible: it certainly is in a model) would be completely different. The error is in assuming that butterflys wings cause tornadoes in some direct sense, which is wrong. William M. Connolley 14:21:57, 2005-08-20 (UTC).

In a sense one can say that the weather 14 days ahead being unpredictable is a consequence of a gazillion disturbances, sometimes reinforcing each other, sometimes annihilating each other. A truly exhaustive equation of motion would have to take each drop of a leaf into account, for a leaf still being attached to the tree or the leaf being torn off makes (theoretically) a difference, etc. etc.

I see a twofold wrongness in taking the metaphor of the 'butterfly flapping its wings' literally. The one you mention, and the following: that an exhaustive equation of motion would have to take a gazillion disturbances into account simultaneously, each disturbance contributing on average one gazillionth to the decay of predictability. Each individual disturbance is rapidly diluted into oblivion in the process. The principle characteristic of systems that are categorized as 'chaotic systems' is that tracing cause-effect connections becomes exponentially harder to achieve with increasing time span. The path of any large development, such as a hurricane, is determined by innumerable tiny individual contributions. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 10:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely with William Connolley's comments. It's true that a perfect forecast would require a perfect model along with perfect initial conditions which would need to include all of the many small disturbance occuring. However, even just one small disturbance not included in the initial conditions can (if the conditions are unstable and allow perturbations to grow) eventually lead to a total loss of predictability. It seems probable that often a single butterfly flapping its wings would make no difference to a forecast at all in the long run if the conditions are such that the disturbance simply decays, but in unstable conditions it can grow and lead to a total loss of predictability. --PeterLean 16:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thermoscope

I have linked the previous red-link thermoscope to Galileo thermometer. Am am pretty sure that is what is what is meant by thermoscope. While the name does sound reasonable for an early thermometer, I have not heard the word before. Gaius Cornelius 07:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weather forecasting vs. Meteorology?

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)

[edit] New page, plus troughs and ridges

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)

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

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)

[edit] Institutions of meteorology/atmospheric science

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)

[edit] Cleanup Tag Removed

--geoWIZard-Passports 09:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meteorologic oceanography

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

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

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)