Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Weather and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 28 days

2024–25 WikiProject Weather Good Article Reassessment

I would like to announce that a new task force has been created to re-examine the status of every GA in the project. Many good articles have not been reviewed in quite a while (15+ years for some) and notability requirements have changed quite a bit over the years. The goal of this task force is to save as many articles as possible. Anyone not reviewing an article may jump in to help get it up to par if it does not meet the GA requirements. The process will start officially on February 1 and will continue until every article has been checked and either kept or delisted. The task force may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/2024–25 Good Article Reassessment. Noah, AA^Talk 15:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles under review

1949 Texas hurricane (review)
Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado (GAR)
Wind shear (GAR)

Draft related to Gulf Coast

Not quite sure where this would go but I have started Draft:July 2025 Gulf Coast floods. Meteorological history is currently empty and the lead needs improvement. I am also unsure of the title (unless it morphs into a tropical system). Based on Florida's impacts, it might be able to hold its own in the mainspace. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado#Requested move 10 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado#Requested move 10 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2016 Jiangsu tornado#Requested move 16 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2016 Jiangsu tornado#Requested move 16 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Station model

Station model has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review

I have nominated Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC regarding adding relations to climate change on specific severe meteorological event articles

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Maths, science, and technology
History and geography

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This RFC is a pseudo-continuation of a discussion at the Central Texas floods article. Points were brought up about the inclusion of sections relating to climate change in severe weather articles in general. However, the RFC did not find consensus for that. As a result, I am opening this RFC. Articles affected include those on specific hurricanes, flood events, tornadoes, et cetera. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors involved at previous discussion: @WeatherWriter, @Dave souza, @Blythwood, @Buffs, @EF5, @Ixgauth, @Geogene, @Drdpw, @Hurricanehink, @SMcCandlish, @Valereee, @ViridianPenguin, @Staberinde

Options

Option 1 – If generally reliable sources are available, climate change should nearly always be discussed.
Option 2 – Climate change should only be discussed if subject matter experts connect the climate change with the specific event.
Option 3 – Similar to option 2, but with additional significant scientific discussion also being required.
Option 4 – Generally do not include except under extreme circumstances.
Option 5 – Climate change links in severe weather articles should only be added when cited directly by meteorological organizations (ex. National Weather Service, NOAA, WMO, IPCC, ect...) or an academic study directly on the specific disaster.
Option 6 – Where reliable sources, including news reports, show that climate change is relevant to the specific topic of the article, due weight must be given to the majority expert scientific view. Fringe views dismissing its significance should be clearly described as fringe, with an explanation of how subject matter experts have reacted to such views.

Discussion

Oppose Option 1, other than option 1, I am okay with any result. I am assuming that generally reliable sources will include news sources like AP or CNN. News stations may not have highly qualified meteorologists on hand. They are also encouraged to make flashy headlines to grab and keep attention. Combined with climate change becoming primed language, news stations use it very frequently where the climate change connection has become so WP:RUNOFTHEMILL where it is about as notable as a fish storm in the East Pacific. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose 6, the exact opposite direction I want it to go. Adding the mention of fringe views would add more to sections I want cut down. They deserve their own article, if notable, and should not be on the individual storms' articles. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently presents fringe views without response; "Chief Nim Kidd criticized the forecasts from the National Weather Service stating that "the amount of rain that fell in this specific location was never in any of those forecasts. ... It did not predict the amount of rain that we saw".[15][156][157] Trump told reporters that the funding cuts had not left key NWS posts vacant, and it had been "a hundred year catastrophe". Asked if meteorologists should be rehired, Trump said, "I would think not. This was the thing that happened in seconds. Nobody expected it. Nobody saw it." One of the references has the NWS rebuttal pointing out the timing of their forecasts, and the scientific view is that with current technology it's mo more possible to give more notice of the "exact location" and specific amount than it is to give a day's notice of exactly where a tornado will land. A fringe friendly statement, needs to show majority view reception. . .dave souza, talk 01:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's more politicians not understanding how meteorology works. And anyways, I dont believe it would be included in this RFC as it does not necessarily pertain to climate change. ✶Qux yz ✶ 03:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue there is politiciahs misrepresenting meteorology after firing a lot of meteorologists, and 100-year floods actually meaning places "considered to have a high risk. Those areas have at least a one-in-four chance of flooding during a 30-year mortgage." Climate change is widening these areas. . . dave souza, talk 07:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 and strong oppose 4/5 - while discussing climate change everywhere we can is editorial, not mentioning it anywhere is borderline conspiratorial. ^EF⁵ 22:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not necessarily disagree with you, but I also would not be opposed to further restrictions to keep articles focused. These mentions could instead go into articles like Climate of the United States, Tropical cyclones and climate change, and so on instead of being on specific articles. Though, once again, I do not care beyond opposing option 1. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed Option 5 – Climate change links in severe weather articles should only be added when cited directly by meteorological organizations (ex. National Weather Service, NOAA, WMO, IPCC, ect...) or an academic study directly on the specific disaster. This feels like more in line anyway with the general consensus from the RFC discussion at the Central Texas floods article, which removed an article from CNN when CNN themselves linked a pre-Texas flood climate change study to the floods. This option would mean climate change is still linked to specific weather events, but it would be clear experts linking to it, meaning the risk of a random news article being used WP:UNDUEly would be non-existent. The Texas floods article still has climate change links, more specifically because there is already an academic-published article directly linking these specific floods to climate change. Not a violation of WP:UNDUE and leaves it to the experts, not a random news article from CNN, The New York Times, or even some random local meteorologist who does an interview with a news outlet. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings for people who have already done an !vote, since this is a proposed new option: @EF5:, Quxyz. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe our government is trustworthy with anything climate change-related, given our current administration. ^EF⁵ 23:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept that as an outcome, it pretty much follows what I outlined in my !vote. Also, @EF5, I don't think climate change would even be brought up with how many restrictions there are and how gutted NOAA is. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does overlap with my intentions with what I wrote with Option 2, but more precise wording is better. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Option 5 to the list since it is being considered as if it was a real option. ✶Qux yz ✶ 20:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 - when weird events happen, it’s better to describe why it’s weird, and provide context. Record-breaking events happen every year, depending how long the record period is. We’re in an era where extreme weather is the norm, unlike years past when it took a long time to hear the news, we often hear about tragedies unfolding in real time, all over the world. It sucks how common it is, but the severity and rarity should be put into context, and not joined as part of some umbrella term for severe weather events. I remember this debate since Hurricane Sandy, if not earlier. I think it bloats articles when there are other better ways of describing everything. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 > Option 3 >= Option 2 > Option 4 > Option 1 - In my opinion, a news source saying something along the lines of "This study says that hurricanes on average are 10 mph more intense than before, therefore Beryl was assisted by climate change" should not be notable for inclusion. Thus, I feel that WeatherWriter's proposal avoids inclusion of those cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildfireupdateman (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - per it connects the climate change with the specific event. Strong oppose Option 5, as it includes a couple of U.S. government agencies, NWS and NOAA. The current administration has gone to great lengths to downplay climate science and questioning the validity of climate change research and reducing government efforts to track climate data. So I don't think we should trust those particular agencies for any analysis of a weather event and it's potential connection to climate change. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaidnoway: — You should specify 2025–Present for your opposition of Option 5, unless you fully believe pre-2025 National Weather Service publications on climate change, including things from the Climate Prediction Center (organization in existence essentially since 1890) is entirely unreliable as well. Just as a reminder for everyone, this is not tied to a specific weather event or year. This discussion is for all weather events, i.e. things like Hurricane Katrina or the Dust Bowl would be affected from this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, because the current administration has also been criticized for trying to redefine the national historical narrative, so there is no guarantee they won't try to redefine past weather events to suit their narrative, so my oppose stands as is. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For some technical reason, I did *not* receive the ping for this discussion. Others may not have as well. It may be because too many were pinged in one post, but it's hard to say why; the ping mechanism has always been squirrelly. I don't even watch this page, I'm only here because I was tipped off at that other RFC that there might related activity here in upcoming days. More importantly, I have concerns about the intended scope of this RFC. Per WP:PROJECT, WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. And per WP:ADVICEPAGE, which is a guideline, ....in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Whatever the result, this RFC will produce a local consensus that may be useful as advice but won't be "legally binding" (enforceable) on every severe weather article now, much less every one that will ever be written in the future. For that you would need to follow some kind of Village Pump process like the one Project Medicine went through to have MEDRS elevated to a guideline. Geogene (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene: You are incorrect on the statement you made regarding consensus. You are indeed correct that WikiProjects have no special rights and that a discussion only on a WikiProject will produce a local consensus. However, if you were to read the levels of consensus policy, you will note that it leads to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which specifically discussion the creation of a Request for Comment (RFC).

This discussion is headed as an RFC, which means it will produce a non-local consensus, as an RFC notifies people who opt-in for RFCs, no matter what topic/area they typically edit. A local consensus on WikiProject Weather could be see here, which discussed the usage of a single source. That discussion was not a formal RFC. So you are correct that WikiProjects do not produce formal consensus, but as this is an RFC, it will indeed produce a non-local consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. The RFC at the Texas Floods only involved 15 editors. That is also a local consensus. You will need a lot more than that to impose a new enforceable content guideline on all weather event articles in English Wikipedia. Geogene (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, even if to went through sufficient process to become a guideline, it's would still not be a policy. Relevant policies are linked at option 6. Options 1–5 look like recipes for a WP:POVFORK so are toast. I can sympathise with wanting articles to stay on-topic snf trying to improve source quality, but skewing that to exclude mainstream views isn't on. . .dave souza, talk 23:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked about it (as a policy question) at AN [1]. Should probably get an opinion there, but if that gets declined out as the wrong venue, I'll take it to another high profile page like Village Pump or Jimbo Talk. Geogene (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And an administrator has answered and closed your question, confirming RFCs can have a "wide scope". As I mentioned above, RFCs is the definition/required process to get a non-local consensus. But, I am glad an administrator has confirmed it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, administrators have no special power over RfCs, or any other consensus-building mechanisms, for that matter. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response, it struck me that a heads-up at WP:NPOVN#Mention of climate change in severe weather articles might be more appropriate. No doubt we'll see. . .dave souza, talk 00:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 6 to be clear that, where climate change is relevant, good quality sources are needed both to show the majority scientific view, and to show how minority fringe views such as climate change denial are received by subject experts. Option 2 would work only as long as non-experts denying the scientific majority view are excluded. "Nobody expected it" is obviously false, and needs due context. p.s. the ping didn't work for me either. . . dave souza, talk 23:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option 2>3>1, strongly oppose option 4/5/6 summoned from NPOVN. Current administration has destroyed much of the reporting about climate change, and there are strong possibilities government organizations under current admin are not liable to provide proper context for weather events. [2][3] Agree with EF5 that removal of climate change in lede is borderline conspiratorial. It is very due to include that extreme weather events are related to climate change. Fringe view should not even be in article as option 6 describes it, that is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reading through args suggesting its a bad RFC, I think I somewhat agree. At best, a closer should find options which we can all agree are bad, but otherwise I'm not sure there is a binding option for all weather events we will all congregate on. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, unfortunately fringe views that "Nobody expected it. Nobody saw it", are already in the article, as I've noted above, and insistence that we only use sources published after the event will mean that for future weather events we'd be unable to cite pre-event definitions or data. O brave new world. . . dave souza, talk 01:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update – that was me being confused by a truncated edit summary while I was editing in the Wee Wee Hours, and I'm glad to say it has since been resolved in discussion. In future I'll try to sleep on it, and discuss points before responding. . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4: An article about a specific weather event must be about that specific weather event, not about the larger topic of climate change (that already has an article and related sub-articles). Regardless of fringe or mainstream, moving into such info would turn it into a coatrack article and lose the focus of the article. If the whole climate change discussion takes place within the reactions to the weather event (such as politicians pointing fingers at others), then report the news story just like sources do, without going off-topic. --Cambalachero (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 then Option 5. Strong Oppose Option 1. I'd be happy if Option 5 was tightened up a bit to make it more clear that we're not limiting it to only US government sources, which would be a bit of a problem given the current environment. On a philosophical level, I think 3 and 5 are the most consistent with our mission, even if 5 can present some hopefully short-term difficulties. Perhaps I'm guilty of being a bit naïve, but I do want to be avoiding WP:CRYSTALBALL about how government coverage will be, and deal with it when it actually happens, even if I'm not optimistic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless RfC. NPOV is a non-negotiable policy, so whatever this RfC's outcome is, is irrelevant. If a certain weight of high-quality reliable sources discuss a topic then that is reflected in Wikipedia articles. If they don't, it isn't. and that applies for climate/weather topics as for any other. Bon courage (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to mention or describe a POV dispute at all articles, as long as academic consensus is not contradicted and the dispute is already explained elsewhere. We don't describe the evolution vs. creationism at every article about a species, or refute the flat earth theory at every article about astronomy. Cambalachero (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is some of the options here would short-circuit NPOV. We don't need to mention WP:FRINGE things pertaining to topics no. But we are required to put WP:FRINGESUBJECTS in context. Follow WP:NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RFC - Too many poorly distinguished options and with too broad reach. This cannot be binding on all such articles - that would be over-reach - although I note that option 2 (and perhaps 1 and 3) are broadly in line with existing policy. Oppose options 4, 5 and 6. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 6 is best. To discuss a major event while not covering reports as to whether human action had likely made it more likely or more intense would be a disservice to our readers. Our readers reasonably expect our articles to answer "Who What When Why" questions if we can find that covered in reliable sources. We also have an obligation to tag fringe views as fringe if we cover them at all. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If the source connecting a weather event to climate change is partnered with the organisation “Covering Climate Now”, a higher quality source should probably be used. Covering Climate Nows guidelines/style guide state that journalists and news outlets should ensure that they are making the climate change connection in all reporting of abnormal weather events. https://coveringclimatenow.org/resource/your-guide-to-making-the-climate-connection/ 49.185.135.98 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s a list of CCN partnered news organisations, there’s a fair few major ones. https://coveringclimatenow.org/partners/partner-directory/

FYI, This is not meant to throw any shade at CCN. They are obviously an extremely important organisation, and it’s just fact that in some way, all current and future weather events are, and will be impacted by anthropogenic climate change. All newspapers with any sense of social responsibility should make this known. However, I do think it muddys the water with regards to DUEness in wikipedias coverage of weather events. 49.185.135.98 (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the American Geophysical Union, or more specifically their Eos (magazine), is listed as one of their partnered organizations, I don't think that that should be considered a negative thing. That should be a fairly highly reliable source for climate change, at least among news organizations. Geogene (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the options are well thought-through. On one hand, the climate change increases the probability of extreme weather events, and therefore usually it doesn't make sense to mention it for articles about specific events (it definitely should be mentioned in articles such as Atlantic hurricane or Climate of Florida). On the other hand, if scientific sources for some reason make this connection for a specific event - it would be good to see examples - then there is no reason not to mention it, so I guess I'd choose Option 5 or 3, I'm not sure I understand the difference. Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first four were made before 5 and 6, so are formatted differently. I meant them as a sliding scale (id est 1 being the most liberal and 4 being the most locked down) based on what I saw at the previous RFC. I do not like the options that I made, particularly 2 and 3, as they have significant overlap and are very vague. I initially made them vague to prevent my own biases from morphing the options and from drawing lines that many would disagree with (like seen with Option 5). Depending on the circumstances of how this RFC is closed, I am assuming consensus will be derived from a mixture of the options based on the rationale that those involved put down, which is mostly how I intended it when creating the four options. ✶Qux yz ✶ 21:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this RfC is trying to solve the problem of many news organizations using boilerplate text on all extreme weather-related articles to the effect of "climate change makes extreme weather events like this one more likely, but whether this specific event was caused by climate change will take some time to analyze". I agree that we shouldn't treat such boilerplate disclaimers as evidence that mentioning climate change in specific event articles is DUE. However, I also don't think we should ban all news sources, as they occasionally do publish in-depth science journalism on the relationship between climate change and specific weather events. I hope the closer can interpret this comment accordingly. Toadspike [Talk] 09:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I feel that @Toadspike: has hit the nail on the head here. I remember being told by @Femke: when I met her earlier in the year that the science behind attributing weather events to climate change has come on leaps and bounds over the last few years to a point where it can be trusted. As a result, I am happy to include information about climate change within articles about weather events, assuming news sources suggest that its relevant and it flows within the article.Jason Rees (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- - Yes, indeed. It's gone from something only done in papers, to something that is operationalised (like weather forecasts). Even without the simulation, it's usually possible to say something immediately like "The hurricane intensified rapidly, something that is more likely due to climate change". Was pinged, so won't !vote, but I will leave a neutral notification in the more relevant Wikiproject Climate Change. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 2 we are far past the point where there is scientific doubt that the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is exacerbated by climate change. A dispassionate document of the anthroposcene should contain that information and how reliable sources tie it to climate change. Simonm223 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note a strong opposition to Option 5 as there is too much risk of political interference with US government weather agencies and climate protection bodies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 5 is absurdly restrictive, the notion that the US Government would interfere with climate science isn't new, but more insidious is depicting climate as politically incorrect and spreading cancel culture. As the very reputable Science observed, the administration’s plan would “eliminate all funding for climate, weather, and ocean laboratories and cooperative institutes," so don't think keeping quiet about climate does any favours to meteorology. . . dave souza, talk 16:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RfC agree with Sirfurboy - there are too many poorly distinguished options, some of which (Options 4 and 5) contradict core content inclusion policies NPOV, DUE, and RS. I don't understand Option 6 at all. There could be a good RfC here per Toadspike, but that would be between Option 1 and a (potentially merged) Option 2/3. I would like to see that RfC NicheSports (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my understanding, Options 2 is essentially our existing policy. If reliable sources are making the connection, we include that. I don't understand the need for an RfC to determine whether we follow the policy on this particular topic. Option 1 seems to be encouraging OR, and the remaining options seem to be trying to put a higher bar on climate change than we use for other topics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC essentially was an editor trying to determine a new policy-style consensus based on a previous RFC, which removed (with fairly solid 2/3 consensus) an article by CNN, connecting climate change to the July 2025 Central Texas floods. The RFC opener is the closer of that RFC, who suggested a more centralized discussion should take place, since part of that RFC led to whether a generic meteorologist at CNN is a reliable-enough source for climate-change analysis. @MjolnirPants: I also think this is a badly-worded/executed RFC, even suggesting to the RFC opener to close and retry, but I digress. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for laying that out for me. Given the specificity of that RfC, this one seems like a wild leap. I mean, one possible (if unlikely) outcome of this RfC is the alteration of existing policy so that these high-quality sources ([4], [5], [6],[7], [8]) would need to be excluded, all in the service of [checks notes] refusing to acknowledge a truth that is [checks notes again] inconvenient to a particular political demographic.

Maybe I'm a bit of a weirdo, but that feels to me more like something Conservapedia would do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessarily to object the existence of climate change, I am more interested in the topic because I feel like mentioning climate change with every single specific weather event is excessive, particularly when only news sources are making vague connections like "X storm is an example of how climate change is making Y type systems more Z" without specific studies. I have also been wanting this discussion for some time, the previous RFC was just the catalyst for this one. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think expecting specific studies to show a correlation is a misguided approach for two reasons.

1. All weather is affected by climate change. We know for a fact that the connection is there already (some may deny it, but the denial of climate change is at odds with reality).

2. Simply because climate change is the subject of scientific study does not make it a subject where we need to rely exclusively on scientific sources. The reasons for policies like WP:MEDRS is because making medical claims based on lay sources about the subject can actually cause harm to people who don't know better than to seek their medical advice on WP. There's no comparable harm to be had by including lay perspectives on climate change.

I can understand pushback against editors engaged in WP:SYNTH or using dubious sources to mention climate change in various weather-related articles, but for any weather-related topic where there are reliable sources making the connection (and such sources are generally trivial to find for any notable topic), there's no policy-based reason to exclude mention.

What I cannot understand is what creating stricter standards for mentioning climate change would accomplish, beyond reducing the comprehensiveness and accuracy of this project. And it absolutely would reduce our comprehensiveness and accuracy if we were not permitted to mention climate change in an article like July 2025 Central Texas floods. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter:, the previous RFC raised a reasonable question about a specific source, but over-egged the case for excluding the "four-sentence CNN analysis". That short CNN piece isn't the best of sources, but it links "how rainfall events have intensified over time" to a useful article from 2024.[9] Saying "The study did not involve these floods, as it came out before the floods" is too restrictive for a background source which is clearly about the same topic. Fortunately, source 24 (already in the article) links to the 2024 source, so using it isn't OR. The "CNN analysis" was by "CNN meteorologist Mary Gilbert, who ... has also never published anything academically regarding climate change." She is a writer and meteorologist on CNN’s climate and weather team, with a BS in Meteorology from Millersville University of Pennsylvania. While I'm aware of at least one prominent unqualified weather presenter, Gilbert is well qualified as an expert, whether or not she publishes academically. . . dave souza, talk 09:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave souza: I guess we shall have to agree to disagree on that fact. As a weather presenter myself (and someone currently cited on several Wikipedia articles), I do not see a degree in meteorology as being sufficient enough to make someone “well qualified as an expert”. She is an expert at reporting meteorology and the news. Climatology is not Meteorology; they are both under the term Atmospheric science…just like how Nuclear physics is not Atomic physics, but both are under Physics. Being a meteorologist does not make one an expert automatically on climatology. In fact, colleges often distinguish them; for example Iowa State University, they have a Climate Science BS and a Meteorology BS. Two different degrees; two different careers of study. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow the core content policies. Core content policies say that each article must give due weight to all aspects of the topic that have been reported in reliable sources, regardless of what we say on the talk page of WikiProject Weather. I find the options generally confusing, but I'll specifically oppose options 4 and 5 because they seem to be putting a higher bar for inclusion for climate change than would normally be used (otherwise what would be the point of having these options?). If reliable sources are talking about climate change a lot, I don't think it is a reasonable interpretation of policy for our articles to do the opposite. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above. There's no problme to fix - if reliable sources attribute a severe weather event to climate change, then so can we. If they don't, we can't. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well said! @Quxyz:, folks may feel it's climate change becoming primed language, but that results from climate change denial becoming run of the mill. When a source shows Trump's fringe views and a rebuttal, editors must check the whole source and make sure mainstream views get due weight. . . dave souza, talk 13:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While that is part of it, it is also primed language for the same reason that murder is becoming a primed language. It makes the viewer feel doomed yet guilty, thereby increasing attention. Part of it likely comes from the fear of denialists (understandable), but I feel like the news has partly turned it into primed language to make the viewers feel a certain way. I also do not know how conservative news primes it; I am sure it is, likely to make a mockery of the "radical left" in the same way that gender ideology is considered a hippie delusion. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Quxyz: – "DEI" was also made primed language for the same reason, as discussed earlier. Unfortunately, atmospheric physics takes no notice of tendet feelings, but nevertheless we must show the majority scientific view (worldwide view, notwithstanding current administration efforts to redefine endangerment) . . dave souza, talk 04:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While in conservative sources, DEI and climate change may be primed for a similar reason, not in centrist or progressive sources, which are the ones Wikipedia cites more frequently (at least in the United States). To connect a storm to climate change can mean writing an extra story which means greater attention, generating more ad revenue. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 with the addition that a meteorologist is not a subject matter expert, as per User:WeatherWriter's distinction between meteorologists and climatologists. Strongly oppose Option 4. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New ACE calculations from NHC

It looks like the NHC just updated their Reports page to include an entire table for each year's statistics, including ACE. Given that this is directly from the RSMC themselves, I strongly support we follow their numbers from now on, at least all the way back to 1991, which is the earliest. 1990 and earlier can still use CSU information given it doesn’t go that far back. Thoughts? I’ve already begun converting some of them (2023, 2024, and 2025) to this source. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that. I’ve long been leery about doing the ACE calculations by ourselves, given the varying totals that often happen, and that it’s not exactly a routine calculation. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Milwaukee flood

I've started the above article. I would appreciate if any project members could have a quick look to make sure it's up to the project's standards. (And is the article title correct?) Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greensburg tornado has been nominated at FAC

Greensburg tornado has been nominated as a featured article candidate; the nomination can be found here. Since the article falls under this WikiProject's scope, I am posting this notice here. It currently needs more comments, so if you've got time, please comment on the nomination page. Thanks in advance! Note that this is the fifth FAC, so reviews are greatly appreciated — ^EF⁵ 14:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]