Talk:Weather lore

Older entries
This is quite a refreshing perspective on the Wikipedia way of things!

I applaud your informality. It seems to me that many (and I mean MANY) Wikipedia articles are oh-so-thinly-veiled POV rants. . . and when they aren't (in my estimation, at least), someone will have the gall to make a comment to the effect that "this part needs some work — too much POV" or something similarly ridiculous. But your badinage about the weather, aside from being charming and entertaining, is informative, and trying to inform myself a bit better is my main reason for browsing Wikipedia, although seeking out semiliterate and clumsily-camouflaged partisan soapboxing ranks as a close second.

Keep up the very good work, and thanks for your efforts!

Sam (not an official Wikipedian as yet)


 * Thank you. It is my firm contention that boring writing is bad writing, no matter what the topic. This is not, of course, to say that interesting writing is good writing, but I believe that an engaged reader ends up a better-informed reader, and I try to engage my readers. Welcome to Wikipedia - I look forward to reading some of your work. Denni 17:10, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Great work, but there's a misunderstanding, IMVHO. When it came to lore about coulds moving against the wind, you talk about clouds moving in direction slightly deviated to the wind's direction. Yes, its true what you are talking about, but it's not the point. The lore is about clouds moving in opposite direction to the wind. And this is possible in some cases, which all almost invariantly lead to rain. Name them:


 * Prelude of a heavy warm front.

In this case, there is possible that cold air right beneath the inversion is sucked up quickly and thus ascending quickly, thus coming from ground. At ground level, air is sucked back in the direction opposite to the front move, thus generating wind against the front.

Cirrus clouds moving with can be then seen at zenith. So the observer can feel the wind against the front, and see clouds moving with the front, so clouds are moving against the wind.

Cirri themselves are a omen of rain, but not very reliable, as these may occur without a warm front, or the warm front may have no rain (when is light). But if these clouds are and are moving against the ground wind, we deal with a heavy warm front, which has rain.


 * Local thermal storms.

When we have a cold, wet and transparent (clear) air mass, we have a good weather and azure sky with califlower-like cumuli, which may overgrow and rain. The air is unstable. These overgrown cumuli become cumulonimbuses and are independent convection cells, driven by convection rather than the wind. They go in the direction from which more ascending air comes, and this is affected more by ground temperature and humidity than by the wind direction.

In some cases these large clouds can go against the wind. And these clouds bring storms or rain. Volatile rain, I admit, but still a rain.


 * Cold front.

Cold front usually sucks the air from its both face and back. The storm clouds of the front move obviously with the front and sucked air at ground level moves moves into front. At the face of front the air moves against the front.

The last case seems too obvious. When one sees huge dark anvil-shaped clouds and hears thunders, one runs like hell to the nearest steady roof or shelter, and usually does not notice if the wind is with or against these monster clouds, so this case probably did not contribute to the lore. But -- and that's the point -- in the two former cases, direction of clouds vs wind can be very useful hint. And there is no typical case of this phenomenon which does not involve rain.

I'm a glider pilot and I observe the weather carefully. I have seen and experienced all three cases many times.

Sorry for bad English. User:Grzes Sun Jul 11 10:49:43 UTC 2004

There are 2 popular weather myths i'm suprised weren't mentioned

When a storm comes, the tree leaves turn.

Alot of thick, wolly catapillers appearing early in summer is an indication of a bad winter. User:Gprimr1 Tue Jul 13 3:25:00 UTC 2004

Another I have noticed many times as actual fact, at least here in the Southeast of the U.S.: any time it is cooler than normal here, it will be warmer than normal the same time the following year. Also, most of the time, eastern and western North America have opposite temperatures. Below normal on one end means just as above normal on the other, with a few rare exceptions where it has been too warm or cool everywhere, or right down the middle. –radiojon 19:28, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)
 * "I have noticed" does not equal "The records show". If you wish to contend that cool years are followed statistically by warm years, please provide me the source of your data. As far as weather differences in the western and eastern parts of the continent goes, this is a coincidence, and is due to the fact that Rossby waves, which guide the jet srteam, are roughly half the width of north america. The same phenomenon occurs in Canada, where if it is cool in the West. it is typically dry in the east and vice versa. This is, of course, only a generalization - often enough, it is cold and wet, or warm and sunny, right across the nation. In any case, there are no data which indicate that this is a rule. Denni &#9775; 01:02, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)


 * Another piece of weather lore I'm surprised wasn't mentioned - if birds are out gathering food in the rain, then rain will continue for the rest of the day. It makes sense if birds are able to predict weather events, because if the rain is soon going to stop, birds will wait until then before hunting for food. [[User:Grutness|Grutness hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|30px|]]]] 13:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say that there is no evidence whatsoever for animals to predict weather beyond the very short term. Animals are good observeers, and may also be attuned to such things such as changes in air pressure that we humans notice only with instruments. However, such predictions are, as far as we can tell, for the immediate vicinity and the short term. I'd also note that most birds require substantial amounts of food, and cannot afford to take time off due to the weather. They will forage rain or no. Denni &#9775; 00:34, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Red sky at morning
Does the "red sky at morning" refer to the color of the sunrise itself? It's more than two hours till sunrise here, raining heavily, and the sky is a very noticable dark red color (but brighter than usual at this time of night). Is that what the sailor's rhyme refers to or am I seeing something else? (like a weird effect of LA light pollution, etc.) BCoates 12:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it refers to the color of the sky. The clouds themselves can be quite red in color, and the sun may or may not have a reddish hue. There's probably nothing weird about your LA sunrise, though if you have a lot of low pressure sodium streetlighting, it would certainly add an orangeish tinge to the clouds, which ought to be noticeable at any nighttime hour. Denni &#9775; 00:27, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Considering skies (plural), the horizon limitation of an earthly viewer, instruments, blindness (color blind for instance), shifts/shifting, state, big picture difficulty factors, priviledge, cause, surrounding effects, source, lacking veneer; what information is obtainable from a timed snapshot, anyone? And what of the pre-conditions to the sunrise, perhaps the sky is already red and just waiting for display? Bammon 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 17:54, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * This article was written when requirements for FA status were not as stringent. The documents listed as "Further Reading" are in fact references, as are the external sites. Denni &#9775; 20:54, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Feb. 2
I really don't think the behaviour of Groundhogs has anything to do with it, rather, if the sky is cear that day, the weather will be rough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.4.213.81 (talk • contribs) 12:53, April 28, 2006
 * The Groundhog Day myth is that a groundhog can predict whether spring will start early or late. It is nothing to do with what the weather is like on that day or during the next couple of weeks. The point is that many people claim and believe that what a particular animal does in a particular place on a particular day can predict when spring will begin, when the reality is that it is nonsense. Jim Michael (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Failed GA

 * Well-written - Fail - Just at a quick glance, it's not well-written. Examples include the usage of probably, a question for a section header, short lede, and five typos
 * Factually accurate - Fail - Several sections have no sources at all
 * Broad in coverage - Pass - Appears to be fairly comprehensive
 * Non POV - Fail - At a quick look- "a humorous rhyme", also doesn't represent the opposing view (do scientists dislike lore, for example?)
 * Stable - Pass - Appears to be so
 * Images - Pass - Good image placement

All in all, it's pretty interesting, but I don't think it's written in that of an encyclopediac style. Parts have tone issues, as well. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

New nomination
What I am concerned about:


 * Well-written: This is the failing editor's opinion. It was not the opinion of those who selected it as a Featured Article. There were not five typos - there was only one, which has been corrected. Perhaps the failing editor needs some upgrading? I would also note that "probably" is a well-entrenched term in meteorology, cf "probability of precipitation". Today's weather forecast may well be tomorrow's cage lining. The lede sums up the thrust of the article well, and is of an appropriate length for the length of the article.
 * Factually accurate: Every section has had sources all along.
 * Non-POV: how can you possibly be POV about the weather?? The failing editor takes exception to the humorous rhyme. I cannot possibly imagine a meteorologist taking such slight.

I am particularly concerned that only one editor is required to pass or fail a candidate. Even speedy deletion requires the consensus of two editors.

What I have corrected:
 * one typo
 * question headings converted to statement headings
 * several more references Denni talk 02:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination is on hold
The nomination is on hold. This means that minor changes or clarifications are needed. If the issues are addressed within a reasonable length of time, the article will be promoted.

The current state of the nomination is as follows:


 * 1) Well-written -- fail
 * 2) *The prose is excellent, but the sections need work. In particular, "True lore, and why" and its counterpart urgently need to have subsections, or at least dividers indicating which paragraph is associated with which lore. Those two section titles could use cleanup as well.
 * 3) *Many users would complain about the "unencyclopedic tone." I see no real problem with the tone, but I would recommend that in particularly informal parts, especially the lead, the tone be moderated slightly. I won't fail the article on this count, but many editors would do so.
 * 4) *Watch out for phrases like "the next little while," "probably," and "it should be noted." They don't necessarily need to be changed, but I'd recommend doing so for at least some of them.
 * 5) Factually accurate -- fail
 * 6) *This is the most serious problem with the article right now. In particular, the sources "Coldal.org", "Nautical Weather Lore," and "The Weather Doctor" may not be reliable. Keep in mind that when I say "reliable," I mean in the sense of WP:RS, not in the sense of "making correct claims." I recognize the difficulty of finding reliable sources for what amounts to a set of folk beliefs, but I'm sure that a trip to a (large) library would uncover something.
 * 7) *Statements in the "False lore, and why" section are likely to be disputed and therefore need to be sourced. If you can't source them, the best thing to do may be to remove them until you can find sources.
 * 8) Broad in coverage -- pass
 * 9) Neutral point of view -- pass
 * 10) *You might want to see the second point under "Factually accurate," though.
 * 11) Stable -- pass
 * 12) Images -- pass

In order to remain impartial, I will refrain from substantially editing the article, though I am allowed to fix typos and do other minor edits. Please feel free to ask for clarifications or comments either here or on my talk page -- I'll be around. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination update
The problems have largely been addressed. I'm right now leaning towards passing the article, but I will need to read it again. I'll make a final decision in under 24 hours. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted to good article

 * This article was promoted by me, N Shar (talk • contribs), at 06:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Good article reassessment
This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article was delisted by consensus, as it failed some aspects of the good article criteria. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Please see the archived discussion for further information. PeterSymonds | talk  13:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do hope that people involved in this article will continue to improve it. In my opinion, it's at least very close to Good.  I don't think the rhymes need sourcing, but the meteorological explanations must, of course, be up to snuff and well-sourced.  --Hordaland (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It all needs sourcing. That's the GA criteria nowadays.  Unless it's common sense (like the statement "the ground gets wet when it rains") in-line sources are needed, which includes the rhymes.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

≤≠≠≤ļĆ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.31.51.207 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

March, or spring?
From this article:
 * If spring comes in like a lion, it will go out like a lamb.
 * According to records, fierce weather when spring begins does not necessarily imply gentler weather later. Spring comes in and goes out equally as often in either guise.
 * According to records, fierce weather when spring begins does not necessarily imply gentler weather later. Spring comes in and goes out equally as often in either guise.
 * According to records, fierce weather when spring begins does not necessarily imply gentler weather later. Spring comes in and goes out equally as often in either guise.

I changed to to say
 * If March (or spring) comes in like a lion, it will go out like a lamb.
 * If March (or spring) comes in like a lion, it will go out like a lamb.

I've always heard this said of the month of March, and never before of spring. At the beginning of March it's still winter; it can snow heavily; at the end of March, it's spring. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How about basing it on sources? I found a good one, but haven't found a good way to add it yet...  Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

...and I should add: the way I've always heard it says simply that March comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb. There's no "if". Michael Hardy (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And that's why I added sources for both ways. The "if" version is only about 20% of the totals in books and magazines before 1920. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Screwed up references
The ref/note scheme in this article, combined with dynamic renumbering, has been completely screwed up for well over a year. Does anyone have a good proposal for how we should fix it? Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Back in Oct. of 2006, the article had the funny ref/note style synced up with the auto-numbered note. This in this diff we started having two sets of numbered ref, one in that style and one in the more common ref/reflist style. After that, the auto-numbered style, which is completely unmaintainable as far as I can tell, started to fall apart. Today, I started again with the ref/reflist style, as it's the only way I know that works. Any objection to converting to that? Or other proposal for how to fix the mess? Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Refs are fine. Isn't it amazing how far wikipedia has come?  This was a featured article over 4 years ago, and now it's C class!  Once I tried finding some refs for this article, but it got old fast.  It would have been nice if wikipedia insisted on the inline reference notation from the get-go, instead of changing the game around the beginning of 2006.  Oh well.  Thegreatdr (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific weather predicting days
after the sentence about russia, part of the previous section is repeated with slightly different wording. i would fix this myself, but i dont want to be drastic w/o permission, so if someone could fix that and post here i'd be grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.166.210 (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Red sky at night
Wow. This is why people grouse about Wikipedia. Dust anyone? "Red sky at night" is due to dry air holding dust particles aloft, so chances of rain low. Please see http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/weather-sailor.html (Fun science facts from the Library of Congress)Mdjgutie (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be a good idea to mention the alternate variant "shepherd's delight", which is probably the most predominant version for inland areas of Britain, at least. 82.153.97.188 (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Weather lore. 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:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-2eZUkuIK3QJ:aqua.nasa.gov/doc/pubs/Wx_Forecasting.pdf+weather+lore+accuracy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=ca with https://web.archive.org/web/20140824232557/http://aqua.nasa.gov/doc/pubs/Wx_Forecasting.pdf on http://aqua.nasa.gov/doc/pubs/Wx_Forecasting.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529121129/http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/weather_systems/lightning.html to http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/weather_systems/lightning.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) 22:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Calendrical
I'm going to renmae "Special weather-forecasting days" as "Calendrical lore" and sequence them by month, as I saw done on the de wiki.

I'm also removing lore out of "False lore, and why" if it is calendrical lore.

Nobody has to be told in so many words that groundhogs seeing their shadow on February 2 is not a reliable indicator of how long the winter spell will last. It is stating the obvious and a waste of time to read.--Kiyoweap (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Groundhog day
There was POV in characterizing the Groundhog prediction as inaccurate. It used one source that didnt give pecentages but just said it didnt have ability to predict.

I added more sources. The data is different depending on who issued it and they were 28%, 38%, 50% etc. Those may not be considered good numbers, but pure chance only yields 33% accuracy according to one source. So the critter outperformed by a margin that was probably beyond statistical error according to some numbers (and underperformed according to others), and you can hardly say "no correlation" in that.--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Weather lore. 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/20070227073114/http://www.wscsd.org/ejournal/article.php3?id_article=152 to http://www.wscsd.org/ejournal/article.php3?id_article=152
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130106041039/http://wilstar.com/skywatch.htm to http://wilstar.com/skywatch.htm

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) 00:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)