Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/General meteorology task force/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

RfC: Inclusion of the daily mean in the Climate section weather box table

I have posted a request for comment on the Dodge City, Kansas article talk page: Talk:Dodge_City,_Kansas#Inclusion_of_the_daily_mean_in_the_Climate_section_weather_box_table. User:Guerrilla of the Renmin and I are in dispute over whether or not:

  • Daily Mean data should be included in the weather box table on U.S. city articles;
  • average temperature data available from National Weather Service websites is valid for populating the Daily Mean section of the table.

Comments from WikiProject Meteorology editors could be helpful in resolving this dispute and achieving consensus on this issue. FUBAR007 (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a pretty clear cut misunderstanding of the way that international readings of temperature are taken & recorded from country to country. Comments added. Guy1890 (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments requested at Talk:May 18–21, 2013 tornado outbreak

There's currently a discussion about the format of the tornado tables ongoing at Talk:May 18–21, 2013 tornado outbreak#Changing tornado table format. Thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

This entry is of relevance to this project. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Snow in Florida

I have nominated Snow in Florida to go up on the main page here. Any help you can provide in addressing the concerns that have been raised there would be greatly appreciated. Some of the concerns, such as replacing the deadlinks, are things that I do not know how to resolve, so I thought that bringing the nomination to the attention of people interested in meteorology-related articles might grab the attention of editors who know how to resolve these concerns better than I. Neelix (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to fix a few things, mainly with some of the references. Hopefully I didn't overwrite what others were trying to do at the same time. If so, I apologize. Guy1890 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The weather change in west yorkshire, England

myself and friends are sat out as you do on a cool evening watching the clouds round the bright now yellow stroke white moon making shapes out of the clouds that moved around the big cheese, i'd mentioned that i'd seen a red moon surrounding itself with a red like ready break glow . As i have always said red moon is the sign of death, and the ring is the trouble that surrounds it.... Well it so happens that he had seen the same thing and that he was glad he was not the only one to notice. I have never seen a red moon but have ONLY HEARD OF MYTHICAL story's, then whilst sat talking pulses of light hit between the houses, i thought they was winding me up but out of my blind sight i saw it flash's of light. i have said for years i'm no scientist but i'm in tune with my roots, it must have then been every two three min's then five at that max. Flashes of light but it started off bright and miles away to lighting the sky like a magnetic ball, spreading wider and,till it was above our heads, i reply'd that only the other day i was sat outside a friends and she has dry like mud/dust and we was sat talking and a breeze ascented down what looked like what u get in a sand storm about six (half a foot) in size little world winds of dust it was tiny tornado's'. The weather is changing. i put it down too magnetic fields meeting it's not the cold that meets whatever, it's way stronger. look at the tectonic plate and atmospheric preasur's we're shifting...........rising waters big weather shift world wide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.57.100 (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Heatwave"

The usage of Heatwave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Heatwave (band) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:IMETS-Light.jpg

File:IMETS-Light.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Cloud height

Hi,

The title of this article is confusing. Cloud height design usually the height of the base of the cloud (cloud base) while this article describe the cloud thickness (référence by AMS). I think it should be renamed and I left a message of the talk page but I got no answer. What do you think?

Pierre cb (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't see what the big deal is. While one could call the height of the base of a cloud (or cloud base) a ceiling height (depending on the amount of cloud coverage), that's not always the case (if there's less than 5/8's coverage of clouds). Guy1890 (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see the similarity : Ceiling height is a subset of cloud base, both are about the height of the cloud base and the difference lies in cloud coverage. On the other hand, cloud thickness is a totally different concept to the height of it? Pierre cb (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw plenty of clouds around where I was traveling today (and all of them had a cloud base), but almost none of them were in great enough amounts to have a cloud ceiling. All clouds have a distinct cloud thickness to them, as described by a few of the previously-referred to AMS guidelines. What are you proposing that any of the above Wikipedia articles be re-named to or merged into? Guy1890 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm only proposing to rename cloud height as cloud thickness to avoid confusion. Is it not clear from the beginning? I would like other members of the project give their opinion. Unless this project is empty of users. Pierre cb (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Meteorology - Skysmith (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Alerts

Are project editors aware that since Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology/Article alerts is activated it can be watchlisted and/or transcluded onto main Project page to keep track of significant changes.

In any case since not Project-tagged will not show RM for eg. Talk:Boxing the compass and Talk:Southwest (disambiguation) but Project members may be interested in those too. I notice that the redirects for all cardinal points seem confused. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Equatorial Westerly Wind bursts

It seems that we have no article on Equatorial Westerly Wind bursts describing what they are etc - can someone confirm or deny this? I ask as i am working on a 3 tropical cyclones that if im not mistaken were spawned from WWB's.Jason Rees (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Outflow_boundary article could benefit from expert attention

The article on outflow boundaries starts out describing outflow boundaries in general, but then switches to providing details about microbursts and macrobursts. These subjects already have their own pages, and I would like to learn more about ordinary, non-destructive outflow boundaries and their effects (such as how they influence thunderstorm development in the tropics.) Oanjao (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Mind looking at this submission? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of October 2013 Great Plains blizzard for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article October 2013 Great Plains blizzard is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2013 Great Plains blizzard until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Alternate Names for Hurricane Sandy at Talk:Hurricane Sandy

There is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Hurricane Sandy about the placement of alternate names for Hurricane Sandy in the article's lead. Since the article concerns this project, I figured I would post this here to inform everyone. All views on the issue are welcome, and I would encourage those interested to participate in the discussion. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was recently closed by me, but has since reopened. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Improvement to CAD could be on the way

A triple threat of Cornell students will be editing the cold air damming article as part of a college-related project. I'll try to log onto here more often (every day or two when possible...it's been weekly to bi-weekly lately), but if I'm not available, please try to help out if any questions spring up. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We're basically done with our improvements to Cold air damming. There's still progress that could be made, however our assignment is done. We added several images, two formulas, and 4 sections (along with some smaller revisions to preexisting sections); overall we roughly doubled the amount of content in the article. The project was assigned as a project for a course called "Online Communities", that project is now due! Although that doesn't mean we're done with the article. Two of the group members (Cornellwx and myself) know quite a bit about meteorology, and we're getting in contact with some of the authors of the research we used, so there's potential that the improvements will continue (albeit at a slower pace). Get in touch with me or the [Talk:Cold_air_damming|CAD talk page]] if you want to contribute or have any suggestions.
Nebelmeister (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Kalahari High

I have written just a few lines about this phenomenon which plays such a dominant role in the climate of southern Africa. I would appreciate some help to expand the article and integrate it into WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this more of a feature aloft, rather than a surface-based feature? I'd bet that pressures would be low over the Kalahari. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly interesting image

I just thought I'd drop by and see if this is of any interest to the folks here, I saw a picture from Nasa on the south sandwich islands page and I'd never seen anything similar - so I've just nominated it here Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Wave_Clouds_from_South_Sandwich_Islands - it might be rather mundane and happen all the time, and it might just be my ignorance that makes it seem unusual, but anyway just a heads up for you folk in case it is of interest. EdwardLane (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Mountains (mountain waves or wave clouds) basically do the same thing. Guy1890 (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Cool thanks, I just added a link to the wave cloud article from the cloud article, I didn't know that was the technical term for what they were called (and for some reason I didn't search for it). EdwardLane (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Polar vortex frenzy

I've briefly returned to monitor activity in the article, but I'm not awake 24/7. For those who didn't know, the media is going nuts over the polar vortex. Its traffic has increased by over an order of magnitude. This is a plea for help in keeping an eye on the article over the next several days. I can't do it alone. [[1]] Thegreatdr (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Low/High sea level pressure record maps for the lower 48

The maps are nearly complete -- only a handful of additional stations are planned to be added. They were developed as part of the overall extratropical cyclone database development. Here are the links:

Weather media in the United States -- a new article

Due to the increasing weather media coverage in the US, it seemed time to create this article. It definitely needs help, from those that are willing. My major work on the article will be done today, with future edits (at least in the near future) centered on this article and polar vortex, since a renewed media frenzy re-threatens that article. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Climate Page Format

I am unsure if there is a preferred format for climate articles such as those here: Template:ClimateUS. Is there a preferred format for pages such as these? I am asking this question here because WP:WikiProject Climate is inactive and has had less than 30 views of its talk page in the past 30 days. There are no details concerning the format of climate pages on either the Meteorology WikiProject or the inactive Climate WikiProject. Dustin talk 03:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a specific page that you were referring to? I'm not exactly sure quite what you're asking us. Perhaps if you provide some examples, I could be a bit more helpful. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There isn't really a single specific article that I can mention... I am referring mainly to individual state climate pages. But if an example is necessary, then here: I might decide that I want to create the page Climate of Arizona, because the page does not have its own article. If I were to do so, then how might I go about formatting the page? Dustin talk 20:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess I'm still not understanding what you mean by "formatting the page". Inks.LWC (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
He means is there a specific way of doing the article, for example WPTC recommends doing lead- met history-preps-impact-aftermath-any others.Jason Rees (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Now that I understand what you were asking, no there is no set format that I know of, but if you have one you'd like to propose, feel free to lay it out, and perhaps we can get something set down for future articles. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the late reply; yes, Jason Rees pretty well summed up what I was trying to say. I was thinking that I might start a few new climate-based pages, which is why I brought up this question. Also, I might consider thinking of a possible new format, at least for new pages and pages that have little content as of yet. Dustin talk 00:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Ontario Weather Service

I don't believe it's such a good idea to leave "The Ontario Weather Service" in the Winter_storm_naming article for the following reasons...

1. Kevin Martin (owner of TOWS) has had multiple run-ins with the NWS. See here: [2][3]

2. He seems to have threatened and blackmailed many people in the weather field.

a. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kevin_Martin#Threats_to_storm_chasers
b. https://images.encyclopediadramatica.es/0/0e/Liat.png
c. http://web.archive.org/web/20130809182545/http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5etPejohIvc/TFz2Vn4LWnI/AAAAAAAAAIU/7vrHc4GEz54/s1600/martinattacksneal.jpg [4]
d. http://web.archive.org/web/20120812212555/http://kevinmartinscwxa.blogspot.com/
e. http://archive.is/NFHG

3. Multiple lawsuit articles have been posted on his site, but as of now, we've found no evidence to support these claims. [5]

"I think it's hilarious. Kevin trolls you all, and also he never filed a lawsuit. There is no such thing. He wouldn't file it if his life depended on it." ~Brian Martin (Kevin's brother) [6]

Just a suggestion to help keep the Wiki clean from possible self promoters. :) Tornadofanatic (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of this guy, but he sounds like he might be a wing-nut[7] who has apparently tried to fool people into thinking that he works for or is associated with the National Weather Service when he clearly isn't. Then again, the entire Winter storm naming thing is crazy to begin with IMHO, so maybe birds of a feather flock together? Guy1890 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like he used to create "official" products which caused the National Weather Service to intervene. I'm saying this from memory and don't have any sources to back it up other than the links from NOAA. He's a wingnut,[8] no doubt about it, I've watched him threaten countless people.[9][10] Winter storm naming is already crazy, I don't think it needs to be any crazier than it already is haha Tornadofanatic (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Not to mention he already acting very crazy and mental unstable for a meteorologist [11] and being contradictory [12].--63432anonymous (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
He also been threatening many people on video site.
a. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7uXt4PZu_U
b. https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!profile/youtube/APn2wQeZUUQRZfz1MoU_E8CggPQjzhYqutQq7LJDATSDTidewXkuMOAnPkCSqPXdRH-fT1rEpRpM/youtube/dOAg2GZ1Dz8/YXK_j1Z1Y5UJ
c. https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!searchin/youtube/LifeInATent/youtube/7jDHA7JGv_U/wGQD32ysTe4J

--63432anonymous (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"Climate engineering" or "geoengineering" ?

See talk:climate engineering for the discussion on the name of the article -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Names of winter storms

This may have been discuss previously, but I'm not seeing it.

A discussion at Talk:February 2014 North American winter storm concerns whether/where/how to include the redirect name "Winter Storm Pax" (the name used by the Weather Channel). WP:R#PLA seems to say the alternative name should be indicated in the lede, similar to "Blizzard of February 2014".[13] Floydian strongly disagrees, feeling that acknowledging the name is promotional, WP:UNDUE and that we should move it into the body, so as to avoid the "condemned...wrongful and shameless self-promotion" in "useless articles on winter storms".

The nearest equivalent I can think of here is drug names. "Prozac", "Sarafem", "Ladose" and "Fontex" are promotional brand names for Fluoxetine. All are included in the lede and bolded. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Any storm with a widely-known (or promoted) name should have it included in the lead, because people who refer to such storms by those names will know whether or not they've found the right system. Also, it makes identifying winter storms easier for many people, and because these names are used enough to be notable. Additionally, the Free University of Berlin names major winter storms (windstorms) that affect Europe, so why shouldn't we include names that people in the US could use to identify their winter storms. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Winter Storm Index/Summary Articles

Note: This has been copied and modified from the location where I originally posted it at Talk:Early 2014 North American cold wave#Merge Late 2013 North American cold wave into this article, and rename.

I would present an idea to create winter storm index/list articles as a way of connecting winter storm articles together and giving brief summaries of smaller events. The article would be named 2013–14 North American winter storms, or something similar, with the North America in the title being replaced with whatever the area of concern is. I like the idea, because an article such as the one I have proposed could serve both as a collection of links to and summaries of all of the different storms and other winter weather events (with articles) that have occurred during a particular winter at a particular location (e.g. North America) and as a page containing information pertaining to events of lesser impact or events with less published information about them. For example, say there was some information about a storm, Storm X, and that this storm, while it did have some impacts, did not have very much information published about it. In this situation, there wouldn't be enough information to make a very decent article, so, instead, all of the information would be placed in a section of its winter index article (e.g. 2013–14 North American winter storms#Storm X if it happened during this winter and in North America). If said storm did have its own article already, it would still have its own section in the related winter storms article (the plural was intentional), but it would be briefer and would have a Main Article: Storm X link. To take a real example, say we created the proposed article at 2013–14 North American winter storms. The article February 11–17, 2014 North American winter storm would have a section in this article with a brief summary at 2013–14 North American winter storms#February 11–17 or somewhere similar, and the section would have a link as Main Article: February 11–17, 2014 North American winter storm. I think that this is a good idea, and should work similarly to tornado by year articles (e.g. Tornadoes of 2013) and tropical cyclone by basin and season articles (e.g. 2013 Atlantic hurricane season). It appears that some editors have already created an article similar in purpose to the one I am proposing for the current winter at Winter storms of 2013–14 in the United Kingdom, and there are also others for previous years in other locations (Examples: Winter of 2009–10 in Europe, and Winter storms of 2009–10 in East Asia), although these articles have inconsistently named titles relative to each other and to the name I have suggested. Alternate names that I can think of for the articles' titles (once again substituting North America) would possibly be 2013–14 North American winter, 2013–14 North American winter storm season, or 2013–14 North American winter weather events, although I am still listening for other alternate titles if anyone would like to suggest one other than those I have already suggested. Does anyone have any thoughts about this idea? Do I need to clarify? Dustin talk 21:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, as most of the noteworthy storms already have articles. Unlike tropical storms, there are winter storms all the time that aren't noteworthy of their own articles, and it would be very hard to keep a small enough article with such storms. As for a central location to have links, we already have the box at the bottom with links to winter storms. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have overlooked one of the main purpose of the article, and then some. First of all, the only alternative is to completely ignore what may have been very significant events just because they didn't receive a lot of coverage. Also, the storms that do have articles only give specific information about that particular storm, and nothing else. There are already some storms being ignored; for example, the winter storm that occurred in early December of 2013, as well as multiple storms that occurred in early February are being completely ignored. This article would solve all of those problems, and even when you account for all of the small events, these articles should not be too large. In tropical cyclone season articles, you don't see editors simply ignoring the tropical depressions that never strengthened or hit land. That is similar to how I would have this article work. This article could accomplish far more than a template could. Dustin talk 22:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't those issues be resolved by simply creating articles for the two storms that you referenced that have been "completely ignored"? Inks.LWC (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps one, or maybe (although probably not) two... but certainly not all. The former refers to a storm that occurred in late the November, as well as another storm that occurred in early December. The latter refers to multiple storms that occurred beginning in very late January and, especially, early February. Not all of these storms had very significant coverage, but I can guarantee that all of them had at least some coverage, being enough coverage to write a not-so-long description of the event, but not enough to create an article of very significant length. This is where my proposed article would come in. I looked up the early December storm, and there were multiple links, so I decided to copy the first NWS one from the top to show which storm I was specifically talking about. Here: [14]. I believe that this storm had some significant effects in many areas. There was snow in some areas (including Oklahoma obviously when you examine the link) and ice in others (such as Texas, I believe). This would only be one, but concerning storms that don't have articles, this is the first storm that I would prefer to mention. I'll say some of the others if you ask, though. Dustin talk 02:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What if it was limited to storms with summaries, tracked by the Weather Prediction Center? That way we could also have track maps, theoretically. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to do such articles, I'd rather go with this, because at least then we have a base criteria for what to include. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure that I would like to limit the list to only containing WPC-tracked events... but I suppose that it would probably be good to start there, at least. It would be preferable to start with creating very short summaries of the events that already have articles with links to their main articles. Articles from this winter would appear to include the following: October 2013 North American storm complex, December 2013 North American ice storm, Late 2013 North American cold wave, Early 2014 North American cold wave, January 2014 Gulf Coast winter storm, February 11–17, 2014 North American winter storm. Late 2013 North American cold wave doesn't appear to contain very much information, and could possibly be absorbed (as a section) into the article I am proposing. Dustin talk 02:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not see this being a good ideas as there are not very many notable winter storms in a given year, 2011 for example had only 2. While in 1999 just one North American blizzard of 1999. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You are making the assumption that notability can only be established if it already has an article, which is incorrect. There are multiple storms that were certainly notable but which don't have articles, possibly due to lack of editor interest. Just because a storm doesn't make top national headlines isn't enough to establish that it isn't notable. Those years which you have listed definitely had more than that many significant events each. Finally, understand why I am proposing this article; it would not just be a list of articles, but it would actually contain summaries and other information pertaining to events that don't already have their own articles, as well as contain links to and brief descriptions of events that do already have articles. Dustin talk 02:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Even if some of the storms listed in those hypothetical articles aren't all that significant, storms with enough of an impact to cause major problems across parts of the US should be included, because the information presented can always be expanded on by other users. Then, the articles would become a repository for such storms, and readers will be able to know exactly what happened during those storms, and learn more about them. I believe that this idea could work out, provided that we have enough people working on it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that you understand what I am saying (or at least you appear to). Dustin talk 02:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Dustin has made some good points, and the more I think about it, this is something I'd be on board doing. Like I said before, I think Hink's idea would be best, as it would give us a guideline on what to include, and it ensures that we don't include nominal tiny storms but also don't miss moderately impactful storms that don't make big news. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it be okay for me to start the article? We can dispute the name later if necessary on the talk page of this article. I found some storm information from the Weather Prediction Center, as Hurricanehink suggested. For this winter, I found some archived summaries here and here. Most, if not all of the storms I mentioned earlier have archived information. I think the article can have a good start. Dustin talk 23:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

For if we ever create the article, I have created a page, User:Dustin V. S./2013–14 North American winter storms. It is only a shell that we might be able to start the article at, with section headers. If we all can agree to create the article, I'd like to move it into the mainspace, and we may begin! Does anyone have further comments? Dustin talk 01:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
If nobody responds soon I will go ahead and create the article. Dustin talk 06:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright. I think that the general consensus at this point is to create that article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the way I see it, the consensus is toward creating the article. The way I see it, supporting the article are the following users: Dustin V. S., LightandDark2000, Inks.LWC, possibly Hurricanehink. The only opposition I can see is Knowledgekid87. The consensus is definitely leaning toward create. I am going to move the article into the mainspace. We have a while before anyone will actually see the article who is not an editor, though, because it will be a while until the article is added to Wiki's search results in the search bar. Dustin talk 16:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Move executed: 2013–14 North American winter storms -Dustin talk 16:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't have moved it over until it actually had some substantive material in there, and unfortunately I'm unable to help work on it at the present time, but if at least a couple sections can be written, that'd be nice. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You are right, but I was thinking that so long as some of the more important content can be added soon, and we don't de-orphan the article until after we have achieved this goal, that it should work out okay. Dustin talk 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
That is the exact opposite of what the article should look like. It's sort of the first of its kind, but if we're to make it and for it to survive AFD, then it should be better fleshed out, with an indicator of what's in this article. Are we including every storm that affects Alaska and Nunavut? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
No, not every storm, but every significant or notable storm that impacts Alaska (and the rest of the US). It's basically a collection of the notable winter storms that affected various parts of North America within that season, including major winter-related weather events that took place within the same timespan as well. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
To Hurricanehink, If you think something, such as a section, should be removed or revised, simply do so. I am still unsure of how the article should be formatted; I am also unsure of which storms to include and/or exclude. Dustin talk 00:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have the time right now, or else I would. As I warned initially, it would be convenient to limit it to only HPC storms - here are the HPC summaries. Perhaps move it to limit it to the United States? That is what we have the data for, at least, so it seems logical. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I listed the WPC storms... however, perhaps, to avoid having empty sections, we should remove the empty sections (for now). We can then re-add any sections after we have typed up some information. If you think I should clarify, please ask. Sorry about problems with the article; I am really the only person who has edited the article (yet). I would ask that anyone willing to do so helps with the article. I don't want to be the only editor. Dustin talk 01:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If anyone can help, please do so. I am still the only editor. I am somewhat limited on time. I have been collecting information on more of the storms. I would really appreciate help, even if it was only a small or minor edit, inclusive of edits by IPs, assuming it is a good edit. I would also accept additional ideas on the talk page. What I especially need are sources for some of the events; with this many events, it is a bit of a hassle finding sources. Can anyone help, please? Dustin talk 22:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You could use Weather.com's Winter Storm Central; most of the info on named winter storms this year is still there. If you're lucky, you may also be able to dig up some archived advisories on some of the storms in some other weather agency site. Unfortunately, I happen to be busy myself, and I don't have sources for a lot of the systems (particularly those that didn't cause a lot of disruption across the US). However, I'll drop in and help whenever I'm able to. (PS, I have a userpage/sandbox on one of the most recent major winter storms. It may help.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to check out the things you mentioned. I might consider compiling a list of sources that contain relevant information, and putting it on the talk page. Dustin talk 20:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge with WikiProject Climate

Has this discussion ended or is it still ongoing? I can't find it on the talk page or in thearchives. If it is over, this tag should be removed from both this WikiProject and WikiProject Climate Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I would probably support the merge because meteorology and climatology do concern one another, and it appears that WikiProject Climate has been inactive for some time and is rather disorganized. Also, at least based on the content of WikiProject Climate's page, it would seem that many, if not all of the project's listed articles could be classified under WikiProject Meteorology and its subprojects. Also, the proposal was made with this edit, but nobody ever replied, and it was archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology/Archive 9#Merge Climate & Meterology projects with this edit. Dustin talk 20:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dustin. I support this merge as well. United States Man (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A new WEF class is headed your way

I am the Wiki Education Foundation campus ambassador for a grad school class studying the atmospheric boundary layer at UCLA. Over the next couple weeks they will be working in their sandboxes and asking the aggregate here for input before they move into the article namespace. I'm hoping all of you can guide these new editors. I'm especially hoping to retain these editors and I think your effort is key to this process. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Guys, I'm one of the grad students Chris Troutman is referring to. I will be writing on the topic of turbulence generated coherent structures with a focus on Hairpin Vortices. If you're interested, I posted a list of references I will be using on my sandbox. Do you guys have any initial feedback or comments on either my topic, my references, or general questions about our class? Student0531 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Glad to be a member of the Meteorology family. I'm preparing an article on convective mixing in atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) as part of the UCLA class project. The draft is in my sandbox. A list of possible references was compiled already. Any feedbacks would be really appreciated. --Lethepku (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello meteorology community, I'm also a student creating an article about satellite measurements of the atmospheric boundary layer especially boundary layer aerosols and clouds in my sandbox. Thanks for your future thoughts and input! --Imaleaper 22:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I am preparing an article on Alpine atmospheric boundary layer as part of an UCLA class project (The Atmospheric Boundary Layer ). I am gathering a draft and the references in one of my sandboxes: Alpine Atmospheric Boundary Layer. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions. Thank you! Liz.Baldo (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am preparing an article on the representation of the atmospheric boundary layer in global climate models as part of a UCLA class project (The Atmospheric Boundary Layer ). I have already placed references and will place my draft in my sandbox. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any constructive feedback!Kquinn1981 (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm preparing an article on Monin-Obukhov similarity theory as part of an UCLA class project (The Atmospheric Boundary Layer ). I have gathered references and will draft in my sandbox. Let me know if you have any comments or feedback. Thank you. Geoalchimista (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm hoping to expand the article on Urban Canyons as a part of this class project.I have put together a list of possible references and started working on a draft in my sandbox. Any feedback/comments are welcome! RoshiniA (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)RoshiniA

FYI

I'm not at all sure how I feel about the issues raised here by this AfD, but it appears that it may set a precedent whereby many other NWS office articles could be deleted in the future. More commentary is welcomed. Guy1890 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The AFD had to be relisted on May 5; additional input would be helpful so that this does not end in no consensus. Dustin (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, no consensus is a procedural keep, which would be fine by me. Guy1890 (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eady Model

Dear weather experts: Is this old Afc submission about a notable topic, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a weather expert but both the Scholar references to the Eady model and books mentioning the model have dozens of sources. The term "Eady model" appears frequently in Scholar titles. This model appears to be a foundational model for today's numerical forecast models.

The references cited aren't representative of those available through Books or Scholar. Only a couple look likely to be retained. The mathematical discussion references really need to be done by an expert. Narrative references can be done by a generalist.
SBaker43 (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out, SBaker43. By making improvements to the draft you have postponed its deletion for six months. From you remarks it seems that this is indeed a notable topic. It would be good to have an opinion from someone here about whether the Eady model is being accurately presented. I will move this submission to Draft: space so that it can have a talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Meteorology At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, so how is WikiProject Architecture involved with this? Dustin (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The person has just made a mistake while putting the notice on this project page, by putting Wikiproject Architecture rather than Meteorology.Jason Rees (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't sure if members of the Architecture WikiProject had some sort of task in coordinating this or something, although when I give it some thought, I probably should have just given my question a bit more consideration before asking it. Thank you for the reply. Dustin (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Overhaul necessary

I believe it is necessary that WikiProject Meteorology receive some sort of overhaul. The page design (no offense to the creator) is not particularly good (in my opinion) and could be greatly improved. For example, there might be better organization of subpages if the main page were to instead use tabs like WP:USA/WP:WPSCI or the appearance could be improved to be less generic, like WP:WPTC (which also has better organization). Regardless, this first comment here is not so much a proposal for what to do as a way of saying this project needs to be overhauled in some sort of way. I mean, a large portion of this project is just in complete disarray, and much is too general. As the main project for weather things, I thing it is important that some changes be made. Regard this not as a final proposal but as a resolution. That's all I will say for now. Input would be welcomed. Dustin (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If you feel that an overhaul of the Project page is needed then be bold and do it, i dont think its been done in a few years.Jason Rees (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Part of what I am proposing might require me (or other willing editors) to fragment the main page of the WikiProject, which is why I am being cautious in just making sweeping changes. If we can agree on it though, I think some good changes could be made. Dustin (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a project page overhaul is a rather easy task. WikiProject Meteorology is more like a broad overview of the subject, with individual subsets that focus more on individual topics, so in terms of how the project is run, I'm not sure what solutions I can bring to the table. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 02:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If changing editing habits is too difficult, then why don't we just start with the page design? It would at least help with organization, I think. I personally think the project's page design could do with some major improvements. Dustin (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul Julian stub awaiting approval

Paul Julian, of the Madden-Julian oscillation, formerly of the NCAR, has never had a biosketch here, and I salvaged one from deletion so that a stub could go up (original author, who knows). If there is anyone here involved in reviewing articles awaiting approval, please take a look at it, here [15], and/or refer it to someone else who can approve. Sooner it is in main article space, sooner AMS members, your WikiProject members, etc. can come forward with further biographical material and strengthen the article, Madden can be next. Cheers. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I don't understand if you are only asking for reviewers or if you also are hoping that people will make contributions. If the former holds true, then I will not be able to aid because I am not a reviewer. Dustin (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, this was undoubtedly an accident, but you were not signed in when you made the above edit, so your IP address is shown instead. Whenever I do that, I often try to replace it with my correct signature. That's not really a major issue, though. Dustin (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the attention Dustin; both are desired, someone to approve, and others to contribute (but probably in that order). I will, as soon as it is in the main article space, but up some further resources for editors. Again, feel free to refer... For now, just waiting. Cheers. Le Prof
@Leprof 7272: Okay, I don't know if you already submitted the article, but it looks at least good enough to be submitted to AfC, although I wouldn't consider it completed. In any case, I guess I might be able to help with references after the article is created; I am not an expert on biographical articles, but since you requested, I think I may be able to help in at least some small way. Dustin (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

City weather

FYI, there's a notice at WT:USA about a discussion at WT:CITIES concerning {{weather box}} -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

On a related matter, can the "weather box" be collapsible in its current format? Guy1890 (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the box is collapsible; I just gave the template one look, and seeing a hide button, clicked it, and the box collapsed. I still don't know of how you would start out the box in a collapsed state, though. Dustin (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
By default, the box is not collapsed but if you add the parameter |collapsed= Y or |collapsed= Yes, the box will be in a collapsed state. See Template:Birmingham, Alabama weatherbox as an example. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanx for the info. Is the weather box % humidity line the humidity at 6 AM, 3 PM, the 24-hour average, etc.? Guy1890 (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@Guy1890: In the U.S., where I've input the data, daily RH is taken as the average of 3-hourly measurements (8x day). "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 17:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Haze meter

FYI, there's a notice at WT:PHYSICS about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haze meter -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft at AFC needs your help

Please evaluate Draft:Convective Boundary Layer for acceptance into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Great flood of 1913 in Indiana

There are several notes in the article that Fort Wayne was flooded by the Ohio River and its tributaries. That can't be, as Fort Wayne is only at a tip of one small creek reaching to the southwest edge of the city. Most of the water in Fort Wayne drains to the northeast on the Maumee River.99.127.86.146 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. At a quick glance, the given source does seem to say that Fort Wayne was flooded by waterways in the Ohio drainage basin, though I'm not familiar with the hydrology of that area. By all means, please feel free to edit the relevant article to correct any inaccuracies (so long as your changes are supported by reliable sources, per the standard disclaimer). It does seem peculiar that Fort Wayne appears to be chiefly within the Maumee River Watershed, but again... not my area of expertise. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Meteorology at Wikimania 2014 (updated version)

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The aftermath of the ENSO to El Niño article move

Last year, the ENSO article was moved to El Niño, the most discussed half of ENSO. This allowed for most of the La Niña information to be shed this morning, which was added to the La Niña article. This now leaves room for an ENSO article to be resurrected, which can use summaries of the El Niño and La Niña articles, and greatly simplifies the editing process. Sometimes, wikipedia works. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm interesting work, one question would ENSO cover the Neutral conditions?.Jason Rees (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I have a line in there for the definition of neutral. Otherwise, neutral would be climo. :P Thegreatdr (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Paul Julian (meteorologist)

Dear weather experts: The editor of this draft has run out of time and patience. The subject is notable. There are some URLs for more references on the talk page. Would anyone who understands meteorological terminology like to finish this up? I suggested that s/he resubmit, but this hasn't happened.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

All due respect to Anne, who is a wonderful editorial colleague, the article needs no further preparatory work, only approval, and the only patience I lost was with the Wikipedia system, where chaos so often reigns. I stopped with the article because of opportunity cost, when (i) a reviewer rejected the submission after looking at the wrong version, an earlier unreferenced version, (ii) when the 15+ citation article continued to be over-scrutinized as a beginning stub, though it is far better than many other longstanding biographical articles at Wikipedia (e.g., search Paul Julian, a name-fellow of the meteorologist, an artist designer with a longstanding stub with no real citations); and (iii) when those reviewing showed a clear lack of experience with biographical research into pre-internet government scientists (e.g., questioning the NCAR archival records as valid). So, I am hoping someone with a perspective a bit more spot on can can to a rapid approval, see Section below, same signature and date. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The article does look good, however im not really able to provide much help or feedback on it.Jason Rees (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Great thanks. Feel free to refer to anyone you know who might. Cheers. Le Prof
Draft was accepted on 5 Jun 2014 by User:Chris troutman.
SBaker43 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

atmospheric phenomena

FYI, See WT:PHYSICS, where several atmospheric phenomena articles are being discussed -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Particulates

The uses of Particulate, Particulates, Particulate matter is under discussion, see talk:Particulates -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge of High-pressure area into Anticyclone

Hi,

I am proposing to merge High-pressure area into Anticyclone, the same thing. Please feel free to enter the discussion.

Pierre cb (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

List of dust storms with visibility of 1/4 mile or less, or meters or less

Just wondering if this was an encyclopaedic list. It seems to set the bar pretty low - there'd have to be dozens of such storms in a given year. Hack (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Has any consensus been reached wrt template:weather box?

Tommydenham (talk · contribs) is adding it to articles; depending on window size it may buggily overlap the infobox (e.g. Warrington, Florida). --NE2 03:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure some of those articles should have the weather box even if it didn't badly fit with the infobox. Dustin (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorting by date

Sorting by date does not work, it gives day order rather than year order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.44.241 (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.norman.noaa.gov

http://www.norman.noaa.gov itself doesn't take you anywhere anymore, but all original pages at the website now redirect to some commercial antivirus website at http://norman.com for some reason. Just try http://www.norman.noaa.gov/assets/logos/weatherpartners.gif; that is where I found File:NOAA Weather Partners.gif. What's the deal here with a website under the Federal Government (NOAA) suddenly redirecting to a completely unrelated antivirus website that just happens to be named "Norman"? I suspect at least some human error is at hand here. Dustin (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Must be something at your end going to the .com site if the site at some other TLD is down. For me http://www.norman.noaa.gov simply gives "server not found". --NE2 05:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@NE2: The first thing I said: "http://www.norman.noaa.gov itself doesn't take you anywhere anymore". Try the sublink I provided. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The same thing happens. It's being done by your computer or ISP. --NE2 14:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@NE2: No, it is not. I figured it would do it the same way it did to http://www.norman.noaa.gov/media/noaa-weather-partner-logos/; I don't have a virus or whatever you are trying to say. Only this actually does it, I guess, and http://www.norman.noaa.gov, the site of NOAA Weather Partners, has been taken down, sadly, it seems. Dustin (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The site does not redirect to norman.com. Whatever is redirecting is on your end. --NE2 19:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@NE2: Then why would multiple different computers in completely different locations still be linking http://www.norman.noaa.gov/media/noaa-weather-partner-logos/ to http://norman.com? Dustin (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Most likely they're all on ISPs that redirect in that manner. --NE2 19:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@NE2: I still think there is more to it, else I would expect the direct link to the website (http://www.norman.noaa.gov) to also link to http://norman.com , rather than solely having http://www.norman.noaa.gov/media/noaa-weather-partner-logos/ link to http://norman.com. I'll have to wait for other responses, I guess; this is not going well with only one sample other than myself. Dustin (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
In any case, the issue should be why http://norman.noaa.gov no longer exists, and how to replace links to media there. Dustin (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for input from those with subject knowledge

The redirect Lightning in a tropical cyclone has been nominated for deletion and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 19#Lightning in a tropical cyclone. The discussion would significantly benefit from input by one or more editors who have knowledge of meteorology, particularly tropical cyclones and/or lightning. Thank you Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Winter Storm Damon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Winter Storm Damon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter Storm Damon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are interested, please take at look at this.

The section is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Non-tropical storms#My second attempt at a catch-all winter article: Draft:2014–15 North American winter. Please leave any comments there. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Weather ships

There are 93 articles in Category:Weather ships. If you feel that they fall under this WP, feel free to add the appropriate template to the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with an article?

Hey, anyone feel like helping out with Cyclone sandwich? It was recently nominated for a speedy deletion as something made up, but I did find where it does appear to be a used term. I'll try to add some sources, but I think that this needs help from someone familiar with writing weather related articles. I can see where it's used as a term, but I don't think that articles showing term usage are entirely what is needed here to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've personally never heard of the term, but I guess maybe it's unique to Australia? Guy1890 (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Rain in England In ictu oculi (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hard Choices, new article about book on climate change in Canada

I've created a new article about the book on climate change in Canada, titled, Hard Choices: Climate Change in Canada.

Help with suggesting additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Hard Choices (Coward book).

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with Merge

Weather is Short Term. Climate is Long Term. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that WikiProject Climate is a dead/inactive WikiProject and it does not appear likely that it will be salvaged. Dustin (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Plus, meteorology is not necessarily only the study of weather. Some consider climatology to be a sub-speciality of meteorology. More properly, both are a sub-speciality of "atmospheric sciences", but in many universities, climatology classes are under the umbrella of a "meteorology" or "atmospheric sciences" department. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Question on Historical Weather RADAR Data

I am working on a weather-related historical event article, and I would like to get a copy of the RADAR data for a specific region (~10 mi. square) in Texas. The event (Delta Air Lines Flight 191) took place in August 1985. Is there any way to get RADAR images at that resolution from then? -- Veggies (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a tough question. From what I can remember, there was no real-time repository for "digital" images from the old WSR-57 & WSR-74 radar network. The network radar sites (which were a slightly smaller sub-set of the entire country's radar sites) were required to take & transmit coded radar observations (at least once an hour?), and I bet that those old coded messages were likely archived at NCDC. I doubt that the horizontal resolution of those messages (when stitched together) was very fine though. One of the NWS WSOs that I used to work at (that used to have an old WSR-74C) wasn't a network radar site though, so my knowledge of those days is limited. I would hunt around on NCDC's website and/or look if any of the NTSB reports on this incident mention any radar data. There also may have been a local TX TV station back then that had its own radar site as well, but I kind of doubt it. Good luck... Guy1890 (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Guy1890: Thanks. It was a long shot, but I'm glad someone so knowledgeable was able to help me cover my bases. -- Veggies (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Radar composites are available on microfilm back that far back. Their resolution is not great, as mentioned above. Your state's government repository library may have them. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Main page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India Earthquake of 1341

It's about a possible flood on the southwest coast of India in 1341, and I thought it might be good to get some input about it. Based on the title, I'd say there's a fair amount of uncertainty about what happened and that's why I'm raising this here. See the discussion. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 01:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Landfall"

The usage and primary topic of Landfall is under discussion, see talk:Landfall (meteorology) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Polar_vortex#Polar_vortex_vs_Polar_cell

Can anyone please elaborate on this? Talk:Polar_vortex#Polar_vortex_vs_Polar_cell--RoadTrain (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits by IP

Can someone with a better understanding review this IPs edits 5.66.155.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have a felling they are a sock of a poor contributor. If there are significant issues ping me. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Doc James, pretty much all of the recent edits from this IP account (especially at Longyearbyen, Pencil & Birmingham) were all vandalism. There are now a bunch of warnings on the IP in question's talk page. Guy1890 (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Guy1890 What do you think about these ones [16]? Should they be reverted? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I've tried to fix/restore the article in question the best that I can for now. As I've noted on the article's talk page now, the problem with the highlighted edit above is that it doesn't seem to jive well with the source that it claim's to be using. My sense is that it's an attempt at a sneaky vandalism edit (?). Guy1890 (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

New, large, article needing help

Hi all. Tropical Cyclone in Northwest Pacific and Southeast Asian Sea is a recently created article that appears to duplicate content from a number of articles. I just wondered if someone from this wikiproject could take a look through the article to see if anything is worth merging anywhere. If not, please tag with A10. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian Winter

The naming of Russian Winter is under discussion, see talk:Russian Winter -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

El Niño and La Niña event articles

While browsing the "Uncategorized pages" special pages for such football articles, I stumbled upon the following event articles: 1982-1983 El Niño Event, 1997–1998 El Niño Event, and 2010-11 La Niña Event. No idea how your project handles these kind of articles but they definitely some kind of treatment, because they are currently uncategorized and stub articles at best. One more note – this message has been cross-posted to WP:ENV and WP:OCEANS as well as the main articles of the topics in question were also in the scope of these WikiProjects. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

100-year flood

I would value additional perspectives in this discussion on appropriate material for inclusion within subject article. Thewellman (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I made substantial changes to 100-year flood and started the cited discussion. I think the article should now be raised from C-class to at least B-class, but that decision should come from a different editor. I moved part of the content under discussion to Flood#Principal types and causes, saved the remainder with the earlier discussion, and added other content to Flood. New assessment seems timely for Flood as well, though it's less clear to me as a newbie if it deserves B-class. Thanks in advance to all who could take a look at both articles. Justaxn (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"Russian Winter"

An RFC has been opened on the title of the article Russian Winter, for the discussion, see talk:Russian Winter -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

United States Drought Monitor article

FYI, just created the article for the United States Drought Monitor. Please help as I'm not an expert on these matters. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Stratospheric"

The usage, naming and primary topic of Stratospheric is under discussion, see talk:Stratospheric -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Anthropocloud and Artificial cloud articles are proposed for merger at Talk:Artificial cloud#Merge Artificial cloud and Anthropoclouds. Come give your advice.

Pierre cb (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Weather box

When we put the record high in climate data, are we using monthly averages or a specific day high? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RES2773 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

When you are filling in the record high in the climate data, you are using the highest temperature ever recorded in that month, not the monthly averages. For example if the highest temperature recorded in January was 14.0 °C (57.2 °F) on the 21st, then you put 14.0 in the parameter "|Jan record high C=14.0" in the weather box. It doesn't matter which day the highest temperature was recorded at. Monthly averages are never used for the record high (that's incorrect). The same can be said for the record low. For all the others, (average high, precipitation, snowfall, sunshine), you use the monthly averages. Look at the weather boxes in Canada, USA or Australia (their climate data is much more detailed than other countries) and it should be clear that they use the highest temperatures ever recorded in that month. Hope that helps answer your question. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of "flood" in titles

There has been an on-going controversy on the capitalization of words in a title that normally are not capitalized. With few exceptions the word flood is not capitalized throughout Wikipedia as evidenced at [[Category:Floods]] and [[Category:Floods in the United States]]. [[Category:Floods in Canada]] list 19 like named titles (flood used in the title not as a first word or proper noun) and of these 6 capitalize "flood".
  • Wikipedia policy:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Capitalization states, "However, for names of Wikipedia articles and of section headings in articles and pages, generally only the first word and all proper names are capitalized in titles.". Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format states, "Use lowercase, except for proper names". This supposedly narrows the criteria to determining if a word is part of such a "proper noun" or named as such as provided by reliable sources as the common name.
I am always a proponent of using the common name when possible (exceptions for avoiding ambiguity) otherwise policy and title consistency should be followed. Otr500 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine duration of selected places

There's a discussion at Talk:Sunshine duration whether the article should include comprehensive by-city data tables. Additional opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. No such user (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Dry lightning and Dry thunderstorm

Dry lightning and Dry thunderstorm —has been proposed for merging. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.

Pierre cb (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Climate change denial

There is a RfC at Talk:Climate change denial. Please contribute if you are interested. Biscuittin (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Now at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. Biscuittin (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Climate of London

Hi The article Climate of London has been created, it would be great if any project members could assist in improving the article. Thanks! AusLondonder (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Off the wall

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

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

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)

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

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

reactivate Aerology

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

Cloud Description Terminology

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather/General_meteorology_task_force/Archive_10&oldid=1128323350"