Talk:Climate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate article.
Article policies
Good article Climate has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
WikiProject Meteorology
 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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Köppen classification

It seems to me that it is overkill to include the whole Köppen classification scheme in this article. Especially since it is said to one of several schemes. Is the Köppen scheme, "one of the most popular", "the most popular" or "de-facto standard". If it is not "de-facto standard", I think it should be moved to Köppen climate classification scheme, and then maybe a small summary could be left. --Dittaeva 14:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and vote for moving. I think that the main climate page should only contain (besides the definition, of course) a brief explanation of the common "types" of climate, like the polar, temperate, subtropical and tropical climate as well as a note on (and links to) classification schemes, like the Koppen's or Thornthwaite's. Also, other info should IMHO be added, such as, what the "normal timeline" is, the climatic system and its components, a link to climate change and modelling, etc... Matt Borak 13:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Weather/climate boundary

What is the boundary between climate and weather? I attended a talk on climate dynamics recently, and from what was said there, anything longer than a couple weeks is considered climate rather than weather. This article appears to deal only with the longest timescales and the differences in climate patterns between regions. Questions like "is this going to be an unusually dry summer in Pakistan?" also fall under the heading of climate. They certainly are not weather.

Also, there should be some mention of El Niño and La Niña as they are the best-understood climate phenomena.

I don't have time to fix this now (and I'm not sure I have the knowledge to do it properly) but I may return at some point to try. If not, let this note stand as an notice to those who run across it that this article is quite incomplete. Isomorphic 10:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

El Niño and La Niña would belong in the climate change article (since no one seemed to even discuss it until very recently), to which a link is provided as the bottom of the climate page. And so far as the Köppen scheme goes, as you can see it's not a simple matter, as under it there are nearly 100 possible designations a given place can have. --12:33, 21 Feb 2004 . . TOttenville8

But would you oppose moving the Köppen scheme? --Dittaeva 12:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 12:18, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)) The weather/climate boundary is seomwhat blurred. "climate" is usually defined as 30-y averages, when its defined. "anything longer than a couple weeks" is definitely the wrong boundary. Climate is something like the statistics of weather, over a period long enough for those stats to be stable. Individual El Ninos/Ninas are closer to weather than climate (ocean weather perhaps). The frequency of El Ninos would be climate.

Though I see your point, I'd rather disagree. There is nothing like 'stable statistics' and the period of time you use to average weather is completely arbitrary. There are e.g. attempts for seasonal predictions, trying to answer things like "what the next winter will be like (in terms of average - say monthly or seasonal - values of temprerature, precipit., etc.)?". I don't think this is weather. This is what I found at the IPCC glossary:
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather”, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.
However, I agree that the boundary could and should be specified in somewhat less confusing way. -- Matt Borak 18:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


(William M. Connolley 22:14, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)) I too see your point, but also disagree... you quote the IPCC, who say much what I said: the classic version is 30 years, but other periods are possible. As to climate being months upwards... I wouldn't go accept that, in a strict sense.
There *are* things like stable statistics.
I say that seasonal prediction is closer to weather than climate. It only works on a statistical basis (when I last looked season-ahead forecasting was poor... do you think its got better recently?).
All right, a step back. I perfectly agree on the 30 years period as the classic time-frame to study (and define) climate (aka "climate is what you expect, weather is what you get"). And, that variability of the atmosphere (and other components of the system) on shorter time-scales depends on the POV. To me (to give another loose division), weather are fluctuations that come from the internal atmospheric instabilities with the ocean (e.g.) serving as a relatively stable boundary condition (and I mean 'stable' in the given short time-frame), whereas climate involves interactions (one- or both-way) between the atmosphere and other components of the climatic system, influencing some or all of them. From such a POV, an individual ENSO event is rather a climatic phenomenon, though it may not touch the long-term averages. However, I agree that such an event does have weather-like characteristics. I just wanted to stress that climate is not only long-term averages but variability (even on shorter timescales) too. -- Matt Borak 10:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 11:36, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)) Skipping the indenting... I agree with much of what you say, though I have a different definition of climate: weather is individual events; climate is the statistics of such events. Of course, that makes climate more than just averages, and anyway includes the average variability: the frequency of ENSOs as about 4-5 years is a climate statstic. Whether an individual ENSO is climate; or is a climate event... this is more debatable.

I think we now agree well enough that the text I've just added to the page is reasonable. You'll let me know if not, I'm sure...

Yeap, you bet I will :), even if I agree. The text seems much better than before and all right to me now. Thanks. I've made only tiny changes to it. Eventually, I would like to make a small addition, saying something like "climate can also be viewed as the state of the climatic system" linking to the article when it's made (by me, I presume...). -- Matt Borak 12:37, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Strong seasonality in Polar climate?

The article says polar climate shows strong seasonality, but is this correct? In the ice cap climate, every month of the year is below freezing, and precipitaition is very, very small all year. I believe the continental subarctic climate (Köppen: Dfc or Dfd) shows the strongest seasonality in terms of temperature, and often in precipitation as well (often very dry in winter). Orcaborealis 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charts

Hi! Does somebody know if there's a standard on the en:wiki for climate diagrams? Couldn't find any information. We just started (over) 8) on the de:wiki to set a standard, how a diagram has to look like. Would be nice to get an answer (asap) 8-)))))) Thanks!! --Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 06:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "climate diagram". Do you mean a map of global climates? A chart comparing different climates? Something else entirely? -Runningonbrains 06:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I mean a chart for a city. Where you have precipitation, maxx-min&average temperature and maybe hours of sunshine. Something like this:
--Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 08:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahh I see. Unfortunately climatology/meteorology is not quite a strong subject in english wikipedia (yet, we're trying to change that), so there are only a few climate articles out there (see Category:Climate by city, Category:Climate of the United Kingdom, and Category:Climate of India). I did a commons search, and there seem to be several different typed of climate diagrams floating around. It doesn't seem that there's a standard set up, but there are some formats you can use there. I would suggest contacting WikiProject Climate to be sure, but it doesn't look like that project is very active, you might not get a quick answer. -Runningonbrains 14:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
8) Same in the german wikipedia, no answer for nearly 4 weeks. And if you write someone from the project on his/her talkpage it will be ignored. 8(( That's why I'm trying to find some information to set a standard for those diagrams. Ok, I'll post my question on the project page! Thank you for your time! --Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 00:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Close to GA?

I'm thinking this article is approaching GA status. I'm looking for feedback concerning improvements before I send it along to GAC. Thegreatdr 21:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This [1] is just a bit dubious. Firstly the lead doesn't make sense where it is - is it referring to something else where it was copied from? Second... is a whole pile of previous states the climate? Only sort of William M. Connolley 21:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with copying a portion of the main article where it is needed in another article. It maintains consistency between articles tackling portions of the same topic. Will look into adding references and reworking the lead. A plea went out to climatologists a while back to help out with this article, but it wasn't heeded. The article would be in better shape if it was in the good hands of a climatologist during the past year. Thegreatdr 14:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't believe this article is quite ready for GA. To me there seem to be too many one-paragraph sections; not nearly enough citations, and no coverage of climates other than the Earth's. The topic of climate change needs a summary-style coverage. What about a history of climate understanding? Computer modeling of climates? — RJH (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That has been done, and the article and lead have been reorganized to accomodate the new information. Much more information has been added to the climate indices section. Thank you for the specific, useful suggestions RJH. Thegreatdr 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Not ready for GA yet. Organization and writing could stand improvement, and over the past few days I've been fixing errors here and there. With further polishing it could be ready for a try at GA within a few weeks. Certainly, "climate" is an important enough topic that Wikipedia ought to have a GA-quality entry on it. Raymond Arritt 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This article is considered one of the most important within the meteorology (and certainly climatology) project, and has numerous pages linked to it, so we should be making every effort to improve this article to GA, and ultimately FA. Thegreatdr 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added information regarding the climate zones this month due to a request farther down the talk page. Once more references are found, we might be safe for submitting this for GA. What do you all think? Thegreatdr (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a mistake in the map for the humid continental (dfb) climate, as the Oslo region of Norway is left out. Not a big deal, perhaps, but still a mistake. Orcaborealis (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use in weather forecasting section

Should it remain within this article, or be moved to climatology? I think it should be moved...but am not certain. Thegreatdr 16:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say move. It's a technique that uses climate info, rather than part of the description of "climate" per se. Raymond Arritt 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thegreatdr 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concert

-- 88.72.13.253 11:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Temp?

Why does global temperature redirect here? Doesn't the concept warrant its own article? --Theblog 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. The meaning of "global temperature" depends very much on the context (e.g., temperature of the air? temperature of the surface?) so maybe it's best for it to be defined in the articles where it's used. Raymond Arritt 03:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Cooling

Should the Climate Change section also include a link to Global Cooling? Alec92 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Of course.Even if global cooling has not occured recently,it still does occur,and should be given similar attention as Global WarmingTheNobleSith (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Climate Zones

Shouldn't the different climate zones each have a brief summary on this page,with a link to a more in-depth article on each?TheNobleSith (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't know. Maybe. I'd like to hear some feedback from the others who have watched the editing of this article over the years. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there's been no feedback, I'm adding in small sections concerning the Koppen climate zones. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

We really need to get this up to GA status, if not FA. I'll be working on it off and on for a while. Give a shout if you catch me doing something dumb. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Raymond. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro is too short.

Per WP:LEAD, I'm re-adding the template. I found no discussion on this talk page and whatever edits may have occurred still leave the intro too short for this article. In particular, it must summarize all major points or headings made in the article. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

In its present form most of the article is devoted to surveying the Koeppen climate types. I propose restructuring the article in summary style, with sections on paleo, climate modeling, classification methods, applied climatology, etc. that summarize those aspects of climatology and include pointers to other articles. This would be a major rewrite, so I'd like to ask others for opinions before bashing ahead. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with restructuring. The only reason it went into Koeppen detail is because of a suggestion on the climate talk page. Sometimes when an article gets proposed for GA or FA, restructuring is necessary. I went ahead and summarized the Koeppen section. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree on applied climatology. That would better lie within the climatology article, no? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failure

Per these last two sections, I'm failing it for now. The too-short intro tag is still there, and as Raymond points out far too much of the article is devoted to reiterating the Köppen system, which already has an article of its own. Otherwise, it's nicely illustrated and referenced and would probably make an excellent GA once those issues are addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Have significantly shortened the Koeppen classification section, and summarized it per the suggestions made previously. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Good work on that. Having trimmed it down a bit, we can now add mentions of other approaches to climate classification such as Thornthwaite's classification and air mass classifications. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've made a first stab at Thornthwaite, which I was previously completely unfamiliar with when you left your talk page message. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Air mass types

I'm not sure what to do about air mass types. Do we just want to mention origins of the different types? I'm having a hard time thinking about how to discuss how they affect regional climates without heavy discussion of the weather features associated with their movement. Jason Patton (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's what Raymond meant...brief discussions on characteristics cP, mT, etcetera airmasses. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's part of it, but for the purposes of this article people sometimes define climate zones or the climatology of a place by the relative prevalence of different air masses. Some examples: [3] (see esp. the extended abstract), [4] (see e.g., figs 5 and 6 in the full PDF), [5] (a nice application in the context of climate change; see esp figs 4-6). Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added the air mass types. This section would be just as much at home in weather fronts as this article. It's a very subjective (perhaps the most subjective) classification; I'm surprised people are trying to use it to define climate zones. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, synoptic classifications are inherently subjective. (When we did this for a paper we had two different people determine the classes independently, then a third person would settle any discrepancies.) But the approach is used often enough we should at least discuss it briefly here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
How does that look? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice! The graphic of air mass source regions is really good.
BTW I'll need to lay low for a while. There's a guy who's got it in for editors who follow the scientific consensus on global warming. Objectively he doesn't have a leg to stand on, but unfortunately he's well-connected in Wikipolitics so I'd rather stay out of his way until things become clearer. You guys are doing great without me! Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Your pointers were quite useful. If we can get this to GA, climatology will likely be worked on within the near future, also for a GA attempt. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GS Success

Congratulations everyone, especially Thegreatdr! Anyone interested in pushing Climate change back to GA level? It has been delisted recently for minor issues. Splette :) How's my driving? 00:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)