Talk:Meteorology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
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.
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.
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.
Peer review 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

[edit] Archives

Historical discussions are found in the following links:

Talk:Meteorology/Archive 01


[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)
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)

[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

{{Cleanup-date}}

--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)

[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)

[edit] Topical and Sectional Improvements needed

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)

[edit] Science fields?

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)

[edit] Inline references?

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)

[edit] Please Enhance Climatic or Atmospheric Patterns

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)

[edit] Unnecessary tag

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

[edit] Merge issue

See talk page: Talk:Meteorology/Books.

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

[edit] wording

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)

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

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))

[edit] Question

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)

[edit] Thoughts

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 68.82.196.212 (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)