Talk:Weather of 2023

Weather of 2024 page

As a preparation of 2024 (ik it is a little bit early, but certainly we will need it later), I have created a draft page of the article. Hope you guys can eagerly contribute! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Weather_of_2024?venotify=created Typhoonnerd (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Wildfires" section.

I have decided to take initiative and expand on the Wildfires section, since it is currently empty. There have been "dozens of wildfires" and atleast 13,000 evacuated from their homes, in Alberta, Canada. Thus, I have created a draft. Draft:2023 Alberta fires As soon as this topic gets out I will start working to expand the draft. Feel free to contribute. :) VisiblityGale (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There is already an article at 2023 Alberta wildfires. Infinity (talk - contributions) 01:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This occurred before the creation of the article. VisiblityGale (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Climate change is responsible for extreme weather supposedly needs a source

Climate change is responsible for extreme weather needs a source, hu.

I don't think i want to have this discussion, someone else can have it. Bart Terpstra (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ryan Maue is not a reliable source

Ryan Maue is not a scientist and not an expert on climate science. He is a private person who is known for his climate change sceptic and denialist views, which got him a appointment in the Trump administration, has worked for climate science denying think tanks and is deeply interconnected in the climate denial machine. Claiming he is an climate expert, because he was appointed by the Trump Administration, which was fundamentally anti-science, especially regarding climate science, is beyond ridiculous. He even got fired because he posted debunked climate science denial papers, which is an accomplishment in itself (especially in the Trump administration) [1]. This guy is not an expert, he is a pundit who makes money be downplaying climate change impacts. Citing a tweet (!) above all to give such a notorious person much space, to make claims which are clearly contrarian to the state of knowledge in climate science, is against the rules of Wikipedia. Especially since what he claims is not in agreement with the scientific state of knowledge. I really don't see any logical reason why Wikipedia should provide a tweet of a climate science denier, especially in a wording that misrepresents him as an eminent scientist, which he is not and has never been. That is completely undue weight and pushes fringe anti-scientific views. If you don't know who Maue is, you can look it up here [2]. If you want to provide the science, you have to do it with scientific papers or better the IPCC assessment reports. A tweet by a anti-climate-science-pundit is not at all an encyclopedic contribution. Having explained why that tweet cannot stand, I will delete it again and hope, you won't restore it again, as this would be clearly intentionally pushing fringe views that are not based in science. Andol (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Andol! So a couple of things I noticed. For one, you should start a WP:RSN discussion if you have enough information to say he shouldn’t fit the exception to the Twitter rule. Secondly, that discussion should be based on policy, not opinion. For example, you said, “…wording that misrepresents him as an eminent scientist, which he is not and has never been. Maue actually earned a PhD in the field of meteorology from Florida State University, and having served as the chief scientist for NOAA, he would be, to a degree, a respected scientist by definition. I’m not disagreeing with your comments that he might not be a reliable source, but I would encourage you to start a discussion at WP:RSN and base your argument on policy rather than opinion. Saying things like, “is deeply interconnected in the climate denial machine” and “anti-climate-science-pundit”, without some level of a source to back those statements up is opinionated. But, like I said, please start something at WP:RSN and you can get a formal consensus to deprecate things from Mr. Maue. (For the record, I did revert one more time due to the opinionated comments I noticed. I won’t revert again, but please, start something at WP:RSN to make it more formalized and policy.) Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I would probably support a deprecation vote for Ryan Maue, if it was based on Wikipedia policy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source in any case. See WP:TWITTER: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. So, we can use it in the article about Maue, if the conditions 1 to 5 are fulfilled, but nowhere else. It does not matter how much academic and political tinsel he wears on his shoulders, that is not how Wikipedia measures reliability. (That would be silly, right? Only people who have never been to a university would think like that.)

If Maue manages to publish his opinion in a highly regarded climatology journal, and if experts do not massively contradict him, it can be used. But of course, that will not happen because he cannot back it up with facts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually Hob Gadling, Maue has co-authored two seperate American Meteorological Society, academically peer-reviewed papers. Estimating Local Memory of Tropical Cyclones through MPI Anomaly Evolution published in 2007 in the Monthly Weather Review & Historical Global Tropical Cyclone Landfalls published in 2012 in the Journal of Climate. So, your opinion that he won’t have experts back him is wrong. Experts haven’t backed him with everything he said, but at least twice, scientific peer-reviewing boards agreed with him and his fellow authors. Just wanted to say that so y’all knew it. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not about Maue, it is about his Twitter statement about the weather of 2023. Unless you are saying that he published his opinion about the weather of 2023 in an academically peer-reviewed paper in 2007 or 2012, you are missing the point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the topic of self-published sources, WP:SPS says, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Knowing that Maue published academically peer-reviewed papers twice in the realm of meteorology, specifically tropical cyclones, and the fact he served as the chief scientist for NOAA, that would make him an established, subject-matter expert in the field of tropical cyclones. Therefore, the tweet that you both contest, [3] shouldn’t be contested and would be allowed by Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

In this case, I’m not referring to Maue’s climate content. Based on Wikipedia policy (WP:SPS), Maue would qualify as a subject-matter expert when specifically talking about tropical cyclones. That tweet was specifically about tropical cyclones, so it can be considered a reliable source from a subject-matter expert. As pointed out by Hob Gadling, people can’t be deprecated, but websites are. While we have WP:TWITTER to keep most of Maue’s comments off Wikipedia, anything he says about tropical cyclones would be acceptable per Wikipedia policy. Well in any case, the comment tweet and comment was deleted from the article. I honestly wanted some consensus or discussion to help clarify things about Maue, but both of y’all said one isn’t needed. So, I’m going to continue on my ideology (in the future, not on this specific tweet) that Maue isn’t a reliable source for anything except tropical cyclones, which he is a subject-matter expert on. You might not agree with me, but that is my opinion & interpretation through WP:SPS, until a community consensus says otherwise. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Your conclusion from may be considered reliable, especially the "may be" part, to shouldn’t be contested is highly questionable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as [...]" clearly prevents the use of Twitter-statments on information about something else but themselves and especially on science, where the best possible information has to be used to prevent fringe content. Therefore the statement has to be deleted. Andol (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling, WeatherWriter, and Andol: I completely missed this discussion last night but I think the discussion on if Ryan Maue is a reliable source or not is a distraction and not the discussion we should be having. Instead, I think we need to focus on the content and I personally think that Ryan Maue stating that the number of US hurricanes and their intensity because of global warming isn't needed and seems rather trivial. I also feel that the timeline of events needs a lot of work if it is to stay as it has no criteria, seems underwhelming/extremely unorganised, has no criteria as to what is included. I also see that it is meteorologically incorrect at times for example: The WMO did not find that the first week of July was the hottest on record during an El Nino which was worsened by climate change.Jason Rees (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Weather by year criteria is the timeline criteria. And yes, I was the one who created it back in 2021. When it was created, WP:Weather received notifications about it and it was a presumed WP:SILENCE. Multiple editors have stuck to it, and it is an in-line note in the timeline which lets editors know to see that page for the criteria and add new entries above it. I remember earlier this year, there was a dust storm that injured a bunch of people, but didn’t kill anyone. I added it to the timeline, but another editor removed it based on the criteria saying there wasn’t a death, and that was correct. It was how Weather of 2022 was created and such. I stopped working on the yearly timelines some time ago, but besides a few entries that are trivia, the general “if deaths occurred, add it”, seems to still be the criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the statement by Maue isn't needed, as it doesn't relate to the article here. But even if such information was needed, it shouldn't be some statement by a Twitter user with nearly no academic credentials and a highly controversial CV, but a credible source, who is actually working and publishing in climate science. Andol (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Linking events/disaster

See here. Ema--or (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)