Talk:Weather forecasting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.

Contents 1 Statistics/history 2 Expansion 3 Restructuring 4 Grammar 5 Weather forecasting vs. Meteorology? 6 What Happened to my Edit 7 How accurate is weather forecasting? 8 So close to B class 9 References Still Need to be Added

[edit] Statistics/history

Hello :) Is there any page containing areal statistics of temperature and weather from past years and months?
I'd like to compare the usual weathers around the world --Gxojo 17:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

Hello. Good stuff. I think a subject as important as this merits further expansion of this article. For example, sections could be added under the following headings:

• Nowcasting and very short range forecasting (0-6hrs)

The dominance of human interpretation of observational data, or extrapolation of observations into the future. How NWP has relatively low skill in this time range due to lack of resolution in model and data assimilation system. Future improvements possible due to mesoscale data assimilation. The idea that at short range you can expect to predict smaller scale features with skill whereas at long range you don't expect to be able to do so.

• Short range forecasts (up to 3 days)

The increasing dominance of NWP in forecasts. The concept that at increasing range you can only expect to predict larger scale features with skill and must give statistical forecasts of smaller features (e.g. forecasting "scattered showers" rather than giving forecasts of individual shower clouds).

• Medium range forecating (3 to 10 days)

The benefit of using ensemble forecasts in this timeframe.

• Long range forecasting (beyond 10 days)
• Seasonal forecasting
• Forecasting system

Also, a more rigorous description of the forecasting system might be useful.

• Observations + Data assimilation -> Analysis
• Forecast made from analysis using principle of determinism whereby the future state of the system can be predicted by knowledge of the current state of said system.

ALTERNATIVE WEATHER FORECASTING

It would be instructive for someone to add a discussion of Irving P. Krick and Harry Geise and their attemtps at long-range weather forecasting using non-standard techniques. I believe that Krick was Dwight Eisenhower's lead forecaster for the Normandy invasion, and Giese was a popular and legendary forecaster in the San Francisco Bay Area and KCRA TV in Sacramento for many years. The weather bureau hated him but he was much more accurate than they.

RCA

-- geodynamo 08:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring

OK, I've done a bit of restructuring. I hope nobody minds that I have changed it quite a bit. I tried to keep most of the original content in there, but added lots and re-arranged things. I think it is more up to date now about what actually goes on to produce a weather forecast these days. There's still plenty more that can be added. The history section in particular is a bit sketchy.geodynamo 20:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I removed the section headings because they gave the impression that the text of the whole of the remainder of the article came under the second section heading, whereas it actually refers only to a little text which follows it.

I can see what you're trying to achieve, and the bulleted list is my attempt at another way of doing this.

--Trainspotter 08:36, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. I was just trying to structure it a little better. Nice job! :) Dysprosia 08:43, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Could there be a comment on...the interesting grammar that we...see on forecasts, such as numerous periods everywhere in pl...aces that don't seem to make...sense. Please tell us...why! CoolGuy 05:19, 22 Septe...mber 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weather forecasting vs. Meteorology?

I'm having a hard time understanding what the difference is between this article and Meteorology, 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 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that there is more than a superficial amount of duplicated content between the two articles, there is no more that is need to briefly explain forecasting in the meteorology entry. Forecasting is a subtopic of meteorology. Forecasting is only concerned with what will happen in the future; Meteorology is concerned with any measurable aspect of the weather, past, present or future. However, I do agree that the whole weather topic leaves something to be desired. I have monkeyed around with it in the past, but it still doesn't work right. It needs a proper review I think. nick 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Happened to my Edit

Hello: I am new to Wikipedia. So first thing I did was check on the quality of the site by going to my area of expertise, weather forecasting. I have been predicting the weather for decades. The entry was on the whole good. As I was going through it, I noted that the website I have settled on as the best source for computer model output maps and which includes excellent "how to read" material for the inexperienced student of the topic, was not included in either the disertation or the links that followed. So I added it. The site in question is weather.unysis.com. There are complete current maps sets there for the six primary weathe computer models now in use in the United States. Within 24 hours my edits had been removed. I wonder who and why? Talk to me, pleas.

John Coleman wxguy@cox.net jcoleman@kusi.com

I have looked under the history tab and note that apparantly a user named Nikilet (?) removed my addition pegging it as commerical spam. Hardly. I have not relationship with Unisys and the site has no advertising or user fees. It is a pure an internet site as you will find. And it certainly is not any more commerical that The Weather Channel (Of which I am the founder) or Accuweather or Weather Underground which are all included. Please.

John

Hello John. I removed your edit. Before I explain why though I should explain some wikipedia etiquette tips that as a new user you won't be aware of. First, always put your comments at the bottom of talk page. Second, don't write titles in all caps; it looks like you're shouting. Third, it is a good idea to register for an account if you intend editing. It can make things much easier, many other editors (like me) will err on the side of removal if an anonymous edit is of dubious quality.

Now, I removed your edit for several reasons. First, you were talking largely about a commercial weather forecasting company. This article has historically been plagued by constant additions of non-relevant commercial links, so the addition of what looked like another was hardly surprising to me. Secondly, there were several spelling and grammatical mistakes, which only enhanced my first impression. Thirdly, your opinion of unisys as a good source is just that, an opinion. "Point of view (PoV) has no place in wikipedia" is a mantra you will hear repeated everywhere round here. Finally, as an encyclopedia, contributions should do the explaining for the reader, not just point him to another source.

Now I've explained why, I will say that this article does need some explanation of weather charts (I'm sure there used to be some here) and perhaps even an small explanation on how to read them (though that might be better as a new article). Please go ahead and re-edit, but if possible try to avoid mentioning unisys directly. It is ok to link to them to illustrate a point, but not simply "as a good source for weather". As this is your area of interest, I have to say that the weather topic is a bit fragmented. If you haven't already, I suggest you look at the weather and meteorology articles as well the many topics linked from there. They often contain information that you may feel should lie elsewhere.

Cheers nick 19:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

To your second comment, I personally object to all the commercial organisations you name being listed, though other editors have other ideas. As an aside, as a non-american weather professional, I don't agree with your opinion of unisys. They only show large scale maps and only of the US. There is definitely some useful information there however and an explanation of how to read weather maps is definitely missing from wikipedia. nick 20:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Nick, Clearly you are the boss of all matters so I will not try to make anymore edits, but I will correct one point in your post above. The unisys site provides the AVN for the US, Europe, Eastern Asia, South America and Austrailia, the MRF for all of the previous sectors plus a northern hemisphere view and the ECMWF in US and Europe views.

John Coleman

Nick,

A apologize for my return to this discusion, but after thinking about it, I do want to add another comment. It is relative to your statement "Finally, as an encyclopedia, contributions should do the explaining for the reader, not just point him to another source." I think it is well to reconsider this position. In the 21st century, internet world, the entire web is an encyclopedia of sorts. I see Wikipedia as a very worthy effort to provide basic and detailed, unbiased, well organized educational material. I salute that. I came here to try to benefit from it. However, to put the entire graduate level course in the weather forecasting subset of meteorology into this on line book would be an overkill. After a solid introduction and basic education on the topic, I think providing links to further an interested informal student of the topic to further study is the correct approach. Allow me to give you another link idea to illustrate. Here in the United States, the National Weather Service (Federal government forecasting agency) has over the recent three years produced a truly outstanding internet web network for meteorological information and forecasts. An each of the more than 100 forecast offices around the nation, the forecaster on dury writes a forecast discussion once every four hours and posts in on the web. These discusions are highly educational for the novice, introducing and explaining the interpretation of the model output, how it has been modfied for the current forecast and introducing important local atmospheric effects. There also links to the NWS Glossery which is a wonderful educational tool. To refer readers to Weather.com or Accuweather and not to the NWS and Unisys is a major error. And to not link for futher learning to resources that the professionals in the field kn know are very worthwhile is poor thinking, in my opinion. Fifty years ago hard bound encyclopedias were self contained and left the reader to fend for themselves in further study. We do not have to do that in the digital age and in my judgement we should provide links...many of them. We can and should debate what links are worthy, each contributing the knowlege of his/her experience, and someone such as you should have the final say, but be hostile to any links I think is wrong.

Excuse my disertation, but the rejection of meager effor to contribute set my mind into motion and I had to put my thoughts into written word for your consideration.

No personal offense intended.

My best,

John Coleman

Hey John, I am certainly not the boss! There are several dozen people on here that know more than me about weather, and several thousand that have more experience than me of the way that wikipedia works. You are certainly right that putting an entire UG course on here would be overkill, but in my experience most UG courses can be summarised in a few paragraphs (and would have saved me a lot of time if they had been :)). I think you misunderstand my objection to links. I (and wikipedia) am certainly not against links per se, they are of course the foundation of the internet and the basis of all websites, including this one. My objection was to references to specific companies in the text of the article and the associated link below. Looking again at the list of links, a link to Unisys would not be out of place there.

The NWS/NOAA is by far the best resource on the web for weather information. I personally think they should be referenced a lot more on here. There are enormous gaps in the coverage of weather on wikipedia and weather maps certainly appears one area that is lacking completely. Please do not see my (or anyone else's) removal of your edit as a rejection; more a recommendation to consider it more carefully :).

No personal offense is taken. Wikipedia has a completely horizontal structure; no-one supersedes anyone when it comes to contribution. It all works on a numbers basis; if I hadn't removed your edit someone else would have done. I would encourage you to put back in the information you wish, if in slightly different format. nick 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I took a look at the weather.unisys.com site and several of the other sites already listed there, and it does seem to me like it's not a bad site to add to the list of links at the bottom. I'm not sure it necessarily warrants mention in the article text itself (particularly since it has some limitations that nick mentioned), but it probably didn't warrant removal from the links, so I've re-added the site to the links portion of the page. I've also attempted to go through and add some indications about the type of information that appears to be available at each of the sites so that people can tell a little better what the differences are and where to go if they're looking for particular things (this was only based on a cursory examination of each site, though, so I might have missed something, feel free to correct me). I also reordered the list a bit to try to put some of the sites that seemed to have the most detailed information (as opposed to just "sunny with a chance of showers" info) at the top, as they seemed the most relevant to an encyclopedia article.

Oh, and John, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for the contribution :). Please don't be put off by this sort of thing happening sometimes; it's just the nature of the medium that there are sometimes misunderstandings and differences of opinion that result in a lot of back-and-forth with edits every so often. Usually it can all be worked out over time with a bit of discussion and collaboration, as more people provide their input.. -- Foogod 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John about Unisys. Their weather-based output is in fact not commercial, even though Unisys is a commercial company. As a historical note, Unisys was responsible for building some of the USNWS NEXRAD systems. I believe there is an agreement for free access to Unisys-weather for US government employees and public access guaranteed (maybe), it seems like I saw that somewhere... And it is not POV, its humor.

Besides, I take good as meaning just that good. Its not POV, but applied fact through years of trial and error, considering the "Point of View" of Unisys. On an English wiki-article, it is not wrong to quote sources from US, UK, Australia, Canada, or others...

Yes, it is world accessible, but there is a limit. Hard Raspy Sci 03:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

TV Nova's only relation with Weather forecasting was, that it broadcasted a "nude weather reports" programm. That's not a sufficient reason to be listed in a serious weather article. That's why I removed it. J. 23:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How accurate is weather forecasting?

Surely there have been methodologically valid studies assessing the accuracy of weather forecasts promulgated by government agencies. If weather forecasting is a science, what are the accepted standards for judging whether a prediction model is successful, and do practitioners today achieve that standard? For any given timeframe (e.g. a three-day forecast), how much more accurate is the science of weather forecasting in 2006 than it was in 1956, for example? A Google search turned up this article, but surely there are other sources available that assess the predictions of weather forecasters on a scientific basis? --Mathew5000 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So close to B class

All you need to do is add a reference section with relevent references, and this article would be B. Thegreatdr 11:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That fell on deaf ears. I've started adding references. Thegreatdr 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References Still Need to be Added

This article has become quite good over the last few months, but inline sourcing needs to be added per wikipedia's guide of style. Once this occurs thoroughly within the article, it can be submitted for consideration as a good article. Thegreatdr 20:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)