Talk:Climatology

Galton
As far as I can tell, if Galton had such an impact on meteorology such as inventing the weather map or the term anticyclone, surely it would be on his biographical page or in some meteorology text book. Redfield and Loomis may be the first ones to construct weather maps, from the references I linked to from the Surface Analysis - Weather page. Also, inserted the word past in there more often to help emphasize the fact that climatology is the study of past weather events. Added Helmut Landsberg biography into wikipedia, due to his enormous importance to the field of climatology. Thegreatdr 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference style for climatology pages - what is it?
I ask the original author to come forward in this talk and state which reference format they would wish for this page the ref format or direct links from the body of the text. Someone just switched reference style away from what the Tropical Cyclone pages are moving towards, which I thought was not supposed to be done unless they were the author. Thegreatdr 01:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Structure finally set
The format of this page is now more in line with other meteorology articles, including a reference section and a see also section. Thegreatdr 15:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article kicks off by saying what climatology is not (meteorology). It also suffers a bit from telegraphic style, with a lot of technical terms used in ways that only an insider would likely understand.


 * I've taken undergrad courses in climatology, climate change, and radiative processes in atmospheres (a physics course), so I might be able to fill this page out a little. I compared the meteorology page, which is much more richly treated currently. Of course a lot of the terms and concepts on that page were covered in my intro to climatology. In fact I got the feeling I was one course along on the way to qualifying in meteorology; a friend who works in meteorology looked at my homework and said it was exactly what he had learned and still uses at work. I don't want to duplicate all that here, but it would seem fair to mention the key concepts: pressure systems, jets, Rossby waves etc.Birdbrainscan 03:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be great. Just keep in mind the difference between weather and climate: here, the topic is on things like how pressure systems and waves define regional climate or affect the planetary energy balance. Many of the same phenomena but viewed from a different perspective. Raymond Arritt 04:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've gone looking for inspiration at Thompson's Essential Science Indicators. One idea is to describe the large research centres involved in climatology and climate modeling - MPI, NCAR, etc. (I note there is a category tag for "meteorological organizations" but not for climatological ones, yet.) Identifying the leading journals dedicated to climatology might be useful as well.Birdbrainscan 15:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Famous?
Fame is somewhat subjective. But I don't see Lindzen as being up there with the others William M. Connolley 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this just shows the enormous amount of bias that is forced upon the climate pages on Ingenpedia. But perhaps this is only my subjective judgment. --Childhood&#39;s End 17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * More like your impolitness. Its probably because he's by far the best-known skeptic; but that alone isn't enough William M. Connolley 17:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For a climatologist, he was published like 3-4 times in an obscure newspaper called The Wall Street Journal, and a Google search returns only 149,000 hits, so I guess you're right. --Childhood&#39;s End 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you measure fame as a climatologist by publication in the WSJ, then L beats Koppen any day. But you don't. L is a noted climate scientist with an impressive publication record (although not much recently). He is famous for being a skeptic; his own work isn't very well known. But... as I said, its subjective. Tell you what: I'll be happy to abide by RA's opinion: would you agree? William M. Connolley 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you measure fame "within climatology circles", then perhaps Lindzen does not belong there, but fame has public connotations that go well beyond specific scientific circles. Freud's work is still quite controversial within psychology circles, but he is probably nonetheless the most famous psychologist within the public.
 * Is "RA" Raymond arritt? You probably know better than me what he thinks about this question. It would be a bit naive on my part to agree... --Childhood&#39;s End 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming that's me, I'd rather delete the list altogether and focus instead on filling out the rest of the article, which is pretty thin. Simple lists are generally frowned upon in IN, and we'd have endless debates about what "famous" means – Just how famous is "famous"? And in what context – climate science? science more broadly (e.g., Wegener is better known for continental drift than for his work in climatology per se)?  popular media? etc, etc, etc.  Raymond Arritt 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, after all, I abide by RA on the whole :) --Childhood&#39;s End 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so do I (yes that was the right RA) William M. Connolley 19:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved climate indices to this page
Per a response to a question I posed within the climate and main meteorology project, I moved a section previously within that page to this one. Thegreatdr 16:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

GA thoughts?
What do you all think is still needed to bring this article up to GA? Should climate models be mentioned in this article, if it already lies in climate? Thegreatdr (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to meteorology
This is new to me, but I am wondering for purposes of flow if the comparison to meteorology section should be moved to later in the article? It seems this should come later, not up front. StenSmith (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

models
After the following text: These models predict an upward trend in the surface temperature record, as well as a more rapid increase in temperature at higher altitudes. I propose that we add to that a statement explaining that we haven't had statistically significant warming since the mid 90s (essentially the Phil Jones statement that there hasn't been warming since 1995). I'm looking for an unobjectionable formula to relate that. To get the ball rolling how about this, "In the face of continued increases in carbon dioxide, global temperatures have not had any statistically significant warming since 1995, something that has not been predicted by the models." TMLutas (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, as per the GW page. Why are you doing this? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific as to what part of the 68k page you're referring to is relevant to my proposed edit? And why would you ask my motivations? I thought that was out of bounds as per IN:AGF . Let's not get personal, shall we? TMLutas (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As WMC said: No - per t:GW. [and your "proposal" is also directly wrong - you need to read what models do and do not.] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * At a certain point the divergence between what the models predict (greater CO2 leads to global warming) and what happens (greater CO2 is coupled with a lack of warming) would falsify the models. After Phil Jones' admission against interest that the globe hasn't warmed in a statistically significant manner in 15 years, I think that it's at least worth a bit of discussion whether an edit such as above is now called for and if not now, at what point such an edit would be warranted. TMLutas (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you apparently do not understand what it is that you are reading. If you took a projection from a model - then there is a high chance that the model wouldn't show statistically significant warming over a period of 15 years. You are comparing apples and stones [that bad - yes!]. 15 years is not a significant period in climatology. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Funny, I've never seen such a model. Could you point me to some that act in the manner that you describe? All the projections that I've seen are inconsistent with your description. TMLutas (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you clearly haven't seen very many projections. Can I recommend reading the IPCC reports? They are really a very useful source for many basic concepts William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. At the 15 year mark on the chart referenced, there don't seem to be many models, if any at all that fit the "no statistically significant warming" label as per KDP's assertion. It's tough to tell on such a crowded graphic without IN:OR. But since the IPCC released a report in 1995 and the 1995 date is the last statistically significant warming as per Jones, would you agree that the SAR would be more on point than the TAR for this discussion? Can we at least agree on which IPCC round of models is relevant to the discussion? I think that bringing the IPCC risks TLDR if we don't at the very least narrow it down to one round of reports. TMLutas (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * would you agree that the SAR would be more on point than the TAR for this discussion? - no. Can we at least agree on which IPCC round of models is relevant to the discussion? - any. Your question was Could you point me to some that act in the manner that you describe? - I assert that at least *one* of the lines on that graph - no, at least *two* show cooling over a 15 year period (you aren't making the mistake of tying it to a calendar date, are you?) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific of which model(s) you're talking about? Honestly, I don't see it. Like I said, it's a crowded graph and you seem to be asserting that the underlying text is wrong (or at least too categoric). So instead should we be talking about adding a time frame to the stark statement that rising CO2 leads to rising temperatures? I'd like to know the actual models you're using to back your assertion up instead of a vague and indeterminate "two models" with no specificity. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, 80% of the IPCC models are diverging significantly from reality over the past decade and a half as opposed to my assertion that all of them were doing it. The article's small enough that we can go into some reasonable depth about this situation since this divergence is at the bottom of a lot of rational skepticism of the AGW view. TMLutas (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A few hints: "projection" != "prediction". None of the models are diverging significantly from reality (0%). "no statistically significant warming" != "no warming". You are making erroneous assumptions (for instance on what models show),, and you are suffering from lack of knowledge about the topic. May i suggest that you read a few texts on the subject, so that you do not make these kinds of mistakes? Blogs or newspapers are not a good choice for this, you will need to look up some more qualified material.  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Did a nuanced edit reflecting that there are some outlier models that aren't invalidated and that we're only halfway through a 30 year period of no warming but recognizing that there's real divergence and controversy has ensued. TMLutas (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And it is just as wrong an edit as the previous. Do please figure out what the difference is between a projection and a prediction. You also need to understand the difference between "no statistically significant warming" and "no warming" from your comment. Btw. none of the models are invalidated by this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, no models are invalidated. Right. That's why you had that famous email coming out of climategate talking about how it's such a scandal that there's missing warming and none of the models can explain it.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.


 * That was Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann late last year and nothing is much changed since then. We can talk about the proper way to use RS to get this reality in, language, format, waiting on papers for confirmation, ok, I'm willing to work with you here. Happy talk without any concession to reality is not helpful. TMLutas (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Integrity?
Chopped a recently added section which consisted of one disgruntled scientist's quote from his personal webpage. Vsmith (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

History
This leading sentence in the History section is out of place:
 * The earliest person to hypothesize climate change may have been ...

And it contains wp:weasel words: "may have been."

This article is about climatology "the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time;" not climate change, the movement of average over time.

The second paragraph is more suitable:
 * ''Early climate researchers include ..."

- Ac44ck (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Made a lot of changes to the article to emphasize climate change science is only part of climatology. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

I have just modified one external link on Climatology. 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/20060622232926/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/indices.info.html to http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/indices.info.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Climatology. 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/20070621215045/http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/elnino.html to http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/elnino.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070420054354/http://library.thinkquest.org/20901/teleconnections.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/20901/teleconnections.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.climatologynews.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

New related article
I just created a related article, hydroclimatology, that would benefit from more knowledgeable editors having a go. Especially with the Wiki-technical aspects of it. CheersRap Chart Mike (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Indices
I'd like to condense the section about indices quite a bit. In most RSs about climatology, this is only a minor part of the discussion. See for instance the index of the following book: Climatology, or the list of topics for this book: Climatology: An atmospheric Science. reverted my edit in the lede as unhelpful: was this because you do think it should remain a major part of the article? Or were there other parts of the edit you found unhelpful (removal of jargony analog techniques f.i.) Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was mainly undoing the edits previous to yours which were rather problematic and it seems your edit to the lead was simply to combine three paragraphs - don't see why that was needed. Vsmith (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope ya'll can work this out... its always a bummer when two skilled and worthy eds are working concurrently with the appearance of undesired third party edits. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem :). I split (rather than merged) the lede into three paragraphs to increase readability + removed some details about indices/jargon. A small thing of course. And indeed the other edits were problematic, hadn't seen you undid those. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Further update: I've moved most of the information about modes of variability to our new article climate variability to balance this article out. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)