Talk:Weather forecasting

Weather forecasting has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 27, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Occupations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles

Weather: General High‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Statistics/history

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

Expansion

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

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

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

Short range forecasts (up to 3 days)

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

Medium range forecating (3 to 10 days)

The benefit of using ensemble forecasts in this timeframe.

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVE WEATHER FORECASTING

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

When discussing alternative forecasting it might be smart to decrease the size of the section discussing the process that pilots go through to get a diagram for the weather. It goes off on a tangent a little too much with respect to the other topics. Although an interesting topic, it diverges from the main idea that is discussed with the different types of weather forecasting. 108.41.137.18 (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC) SK[reply]

RCA

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

Restructuring

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

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

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

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

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

Grammar

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

Weather forecasting vs. Meteorology?

I'm having a hard time understanding what the difference is between this article and Meteorology, which appears to be about the same subject. Is there some reason these are two separate articles with a fair amount of duplicated content? If so, what is it? If not, should these articles be merged? -- Foogod 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weather forecasting is a method to understand the state of the earth’s atmosphere, mainly concerning its effects upon life and human activities. It consists of short-term (minutes to days) variations in the atmosphere. Weather forecasting can mainly be done with the help of parameters such as temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind.

Meteorology is the scientific study of the earth’s atmosphere, including both land and oceans. It comprises of fundamental topics such as the composition, structure, and motion of the atmosphere. This study helps to understand and predict atmospheric activities. The significant difference between the two is that weather forecasting predicts the state of the earth’s atmosphere, and meteorology is the scientific and in-depth study of that state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamliamjones (talk • contribs) 11:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

strange expression

in the first paragraph it isn said that humans have been predicting weathr informally for ob - a rather strange expression Electrolaser89 (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Happened to my Edit

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

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

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

John

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Coleman

Nick,

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

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

No personal offense intended.

My best,

John Coleman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How accurate is weather forecasting?

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

The Editors of this article seem wholly obsessed with saying how good weather forecasting has become, but have not given any justifcation! As the above user has stated, why is there no reference to tests of accuracy? One example from the UK shows that forecasters have a long way to go. In the Spring of 2007, they predicted a long hot summer, but we have had a very wet summer so far. No sign of any apologies or explanations from the UK Met Office. Peterlewis 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone listening out there re: my query about accuracy of forecasting? Surely there must have been surveys of forecast accuracy, which is just blandly mentioned in the article by saying that it is less accurate as time goes by. Peterlewis 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weather forecasts are up to a week, perhaps 2 at a pinch. Seasonal forecasts are different. Text-based forecasts are near impossible to validate meaningfully. Model forecasts fields can be objectively shown to have improved William M. Connolley 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so forecasts are up to a week, but that doesn't say anything about their accuracy. In the opening part of the article, it says that the farther the predicted time is in the future, the less accurate they get. So does the accuracy for a forecast for 2 weeks from today go towards zero? JohnnieDanger (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately weather forecasting has changed dramatically in the last twenty years and not for the better. The addition of computer models and satellites in local television broadcasts has created a level of confidence in accuracy that is not reflected in the evidence. Global Warming has introduced politics into every single aspect of weather forecasting such that politicians and broadcast producers are often directing meteorologists as to what information is provided to the public. Finally Internet based forecasting is often provided on a layered subscription basis with information being omitted intentionally in order to generate revenue thereby skewing the accuracy of reported forecasts based on financial objectives.

What can Wikipedia do in addressing the clear problems with weather forecasting today? Unfortunately nothing. As has been said many times, Wikipedia is neither commercial nor political and is loath to be involved in either, lest we become just another pay to play Internet resource.

Weather Forecasting will continue to become more and more politicized and commercialized, as the primary objective is not the pursuit of accuracy but rather establishing and following a particular agenda.

I will be starting a six-month analysis of weather forecasting by local and regional meteorologist to establish the level of accuracy and hope to publish by the end of the year.

The most negative effect of the new weather forecasting paradigm is what I’m seeing here in Lake County Florida, which was guaranteed 100% to receive at least tropical storm force winds and rain. Even people, who would normally regard the meteorologist and the technology used by them as reliable, are now referring to them as clueless and never intend to rely on them again.

That is a scary prospect for a state that has severe weather as frequently as any state in the Union. Wdhowellsr (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too, am concerned that this article cites no scientific studies of the accuracy of weather forecasting. --RedHouse18 18:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHouse18 (talk • contribs)

Same here! I really would like to know more about forecast accuracy. There must be studies! Like, average temperature in a 3-day forecast was correct at X % of the times, or something like this. JohnnieDanger (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to weather forecasting accuracy, longer-range forecasts are less accurate. Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggests a seven-day forecast can only predict the weather about 80 percent of the time. A five-day forecast can correctly predict the weather about 90 percent of the time. However, beyond ten days, a prediction is only right about half the time. But in modern times, the combination of AI and ML technologies has helped the accuracy rates go higher. These technologies use data from the past and combine them with the present data and satellite imagery and sensors, which produces a higher accuracy percentage. Forecasting the weather may have been a manual process in the past, but with new technologies emerging every day, it has become easier to generate forecasts with better accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamliamjones (talk • contribs) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing in on GA class/inline references still needed

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

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

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

Still needs more inline references, preferrably one per paragraph, if we're going to submit this article for GA. Thegreatdr 01:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is halfway there. More inline references are needed in order to submit it to GAC. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're nearly there. A couple links and some slight expansion of the marine portion and reworking of the lead, and the article will be submitted for GAC. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

someone has insert a incorrect remark

look at the first line of the article Arttic00 17:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of excessive links

I really feel that it is not necessary to have such a list of commercial organisation which provide weather forecasts. Wikipedia is not an internet directory. Plus wikipedia is not the place for advertising. Also all the external links should be in the external links section so the article is consistent with other articles.--Benjaminevans82 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have far too many external links. They will need to be trimmed back in such a way as to not violate NPOV. This article will not make GA if all these links remain. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed another batch of external links, this time including extraneous NOAA links. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Weather forecasting/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. It has taken a while, but I believe this article has enough information and references (finally) to achieve GA. All reviews and comments are welcome. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

I've made a number of changes over the last few days, mostly copy-editing. After also removing a small number of questionable statements, this article meets the requirements for a Good Article! Good job!

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Farside6 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thegreatdr (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pull-quite in "History"

The Template:Cquote in the middle of the history section seems out of place. I would suggest removing it. Thoughts? Farside6 (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. At some point, it must have made sense for that quote to be there. After all the edits, it no longer does. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weather forecasting (marine)

A new article Weather forecasting (marine) should be made that describes stand-alone weather forecast devices for use at sea (eg using radiofax, rtty, navtex). Also mention the Elector SDR Marine weather receiver which is a low-cost, open-source receiver (might be useful for houseboats of people in developing world)

Also, does maritime weather forecasts (thus forecast for eg certain areas in the middle of the ocean) exist trough the new internet-based media (RSS, podcasts, weather.com, ...). Could be used if satellite dish/access is present on boat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.148.68 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest weather forecasts over media

"Radio weather forecasts date to 1923, when E. B. Rideout began broadcasting in Boston. Televised weathercasts were first aired on the Weather Bureau Dumont Network in 1947 by James M. 'Jimmie' Fidler." [1]

Worth a mention? Better at Radio broadcasting/History of television? Mapsax (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

What level of accuracy at any given time horizon can currently be achieved, using what techniques? -- Beland (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To some degree, this has been addressed in the overhaul of the numerical weather prediction section. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

This is illuminating but stops short of explaining when and how each piece of information was developed. For example, in the Three Men in a Boat, the Englishman related reading the paper with "fronts" moving across Europe. This is fairly sophisticated IMO. And no, no history there either. Student7 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Forecasting

The weather forecasting is the application of science and technolgy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.109.12.254 (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weather forecasting uses science and technology to forecast atmospheric conditions for a certain period over a specific location. In the past, it was primarily focused on variations in barometric pressure, existing weather patterns, and sky state or cloud cover. Still, in recent times, it is done using an amalgamation of data from the past, satellite imagery, and most importantly, AI technologies for accuracy. Weather predictions are created by gathering objective data about the actual condition of the atmosphere at a particular location and using meteorology to predict how the weather will behave in the future. There are various uses of weather forecasting in day-to-day life; it can be as simple as deciding whether to take an umbrella with you on your work or to determine your outfit. It can also help various sectors like agriculture and farming, logistics, aviation, among others, for their operations and smooth functioning. Weather forecasting is crucial since it also helps determine the future of climate change. It helps to monitor climate patterns, and its insights can help mitigate its risks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamliamjones (talk • contribs) 11:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up intro section

I apologize if I'm not doing this correctly (I'm not a regular contributor and I'm not acquainted with coding and etiquette) but the first section of the weather forecasting page is jacked up. Looks like someone cut and pasted indiscriminately in a few places. Nonsense words, a sentence starting in the middle, etc. If someone who works this page regularly could take a look at it and see what happened, that would be great. Mattvsmith (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold...

but not too bold I hope. I have hacked out of the article completely a list of types of models. These are very generic and not specific to weather forecasting and were presented without any context. I'm happy to talk about this though. I'd also like to cut the section How models create forecasts out almost completely. It is covered much better in the Numerical weather prediction article. I think that this article should have a short explanation in the section Use of forecast models. This would probably be a little too bold to do without asking for input so please tell me what you think.--NHSavage (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Older definition of weather prediction

/there are some semantic issues though/

The probability of the occurrence of a weather phenomenon (e.g. precipitation)
is the expected value (of that phenomenon occurring)
of a large number of virtual outcomes,
for certain periods of time (quanta of time)
and the amount of a specific measurable effect of that weather phenomenon (over a threshold)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.222.127 (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forecast skill

I wanted to add a link to forecast skill (which I just cleaned up) and there was no appropriate section (what discussion exists seems to be subordinated to specific techniques, which doesn't rub me right) so I added a thin top-level section. My vote would be to expand this section, poaching existing discussion, but others might prefer to fold this into the existing subordinated presentation. — MaxEnt 02:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxEnt, has it already been expanded? 2600:6C5E:3800:187E:8896:A14A:6863:7143 (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Weather forecasting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080325084036/http://www.aip.org/history/sloan/gcm/ to http://www.aip.org/history/sloan/gcm/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230100059/http://weather.unisys.com/wxp/Appendices/Formats/SYNOP.html to http://weather.unisys.com/wxp/Appendices/Formats/SYNOP.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/~sparc/News12/Radiosondes.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/WG4/wrfvar/wrfvar-tutorial.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nwac.us/education_resources/Field_forecasting.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060703204148/http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/cd/brochures/warning_e.cfm to http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/cd/brochures/warning_e.cfm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409133140/http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/menu/JTWC_mission.html to http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/menu/JTWC_mission.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=157
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100309083348/http://www.un.org/peace/africa/Diamond.html to http://www.un.org/peace/africa/Diamond.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24-hour daily weather period definition/shift

The article currently says:

"The low temperature forecast for the current day is calculated using the lowest temperature found between 7 pm that evening through 7 am the following morning.*ref*Weather Channel - *feedback.weather.com/knowledgebase/articles/32098-weather-com-is-the-low-before-or-after-the-high Calculation of Low Temperature Forecast]^{[dead link]}*/ref* So, in short, today's forecasted low is most likely tomorrow's low temperature."

This confusing and important subject needs more attention. Most sources of overnight low temp predictions are frustratingly vague about the hours covered by the prediction. The article text WC link re 7pm-7am is dead. (We need a good link to a better source about this.) How true is it? How general is it? In different countries? What happens when the low temp is not actually within this 12 hour period? Can we assume that all historical records use strictly midnight to midnight "days"? Which creates a confusing inconsistency between overnight low predictions and past records -- this is important enough to warrant a clear statement in this and/or other relevant WP articles... (Aside comment: many WP talk pages are over-aggressively archived by robots. Good to see this talk page stretching back over a decade still intact whole, have this feeling of community group work over time.)-73.61.15.24 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Weather forecasting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weathermen, weather girls, weather presenters

Surely the people we see and hear presenting the weather forecast deserve at least a section in this page, if not their own page? There is huge public interest in this role (its history and societal significance) and these people, who may be professional forecasters, or have career paths that intersect with acting and celebrity - or notoriety: George Cowling, Michael Fish, Punxsutawney Phil, naked weather forecasters. See this Guardian article. 112.119.77.63 (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Trends in the skill of weather prediction at lead times of 1–14 days"

Could this be worked into the article? Mapsax (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

medieval weather prediction

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4724 for possible use in article. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:1A5F (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]