The Green Energy site is the only one that comes close (and not that close!)

Is there a secret treasure trove of questions regarding such a site that I have missed?

This site would be for climatologists and other climate experts, perhaps statisticians and programmers working on climate models, and/or the masses who just want to understand more about what is going on.


Then... just make a proposal yourself :D

  • @Markus Schwalbe I thought I couldn't do that without more reputation, my bad. Also, I assumed it must have been proposed and wanted to know if it was an obvious no way for the SE network.
    – Henry
    May 11 '11 at 16:00

There was a proposal named "Weather and Climate Systems" but it appears to have died. It had an obvious overlap with the "Meteorology" proposal, which wouldn't have done it any favours, and the Met folks seemed to me keen to avoid a merger. I sympathise with that view because they don't want to have to manage the climate trolling if they can avoid it.

My experience from Wikipedia editing it that there's only a small overlap of the individuals who would frequent both Meteorology.SE and Climate.SE -- the former includes people with engineering and aviation backgrounds, many of whom have little interest in climate change. OTOH, it would be a shame if neither Meteorology.SE nor Climate.SE got to beta because the support was divided. After all, on StackOverflow I happily follow the programming languages I'm interested in and ignore the rest.


It would be a constant flame-war... IMO it has its place on Meteorology, you can also try to ask CC questions on Physics (but serious ones only).

  • Using Wikipedia as an example, Meteorology and Climate are two totally separate topics (under Weather of all things, which isn't what Climate it is either) but perhaps you see my point. A meteorologist plays only a part in the study of climate change. I will see how I fair on those sites though, thank you!
    – Henry
    May 11 '11 at 16:02
  • Obviously. I rather meant adding this topic to Meteorology proposal; SE sites should be build around communities rather than topics, so this merge seems pretty natural.
    – mbq
    May 11 '11 at 16:32
  • @mbq I see what you mean. I have created a proposal just to see what happens, but I will also suggest adding to Meteorology and see which is a more popular/correct way to go.
    – Henry
    May 11 '11 at 16:36

For anyone else coming to this question, there is a Climate Change proposal now, at definition stage, started by the poster who originally asked this question.

There is also a Sustainable Living proposal at commitment stage, and about to tip over the 50% mark as I write, which you might want to commit to. Its scope could be a superset of a Climate Change site.

There's also a suggestion to merge all the Geology / Earth / Environmental Sciences into a single site proposal.


This question is 4 years old. But now is the time to ask it again I think.

It seems like there is a good reason to bring this proposal again to facilitate a faster knowledge sharing. Seems like there are a lot of topics from technical, scientific to social and communal that could be addressed in such community.

Now that COP21 is over and it seems like a lot of lead people in field skeptical that enough will be done on time.

  • 1
    The top answer by Markus Schwalbe still applies "Then... just make a proposal yourself :D" Dec 16 '15 at 18:47
  • Sounds good @JamesJenkins, thanks : )
    – GnrlBzik
    Dec 16 '15 at 19:46

I think its no good idea, esp. if you call it "climate change". Choose a serious topics that doesnt focus on the results of current climate models and underlying assumptions and data. As mbq pointed out, there are meteorology (for used data and models) or theoreticalphysics (for underlying mathematics - deterministic chaos). But dont ask about results or rationality of assumptions. This is biased politics and can neither be objectively analysed nor answered.

I made a proposal myself about futurology


But this is only aimed on methods, mathematics, factors of societal/environmental/techn. evolution, NOT about future prediction, speculation or asking how reliable this or that climate model/result is, these conclusions you have to draw on your own. You can ask, what were the assumptions of calculation and model X, but its not for discussion and imho the Q&A format doesnt fit debating of global warming at all. There are much better discussion forums and climate blogs available.

You also see no serious one here making a "Big Bang theory" proposal. This is simply unscientific, as there are no true theories, there are only theories not falsified yet ;) No serious scientist would visit such a site/proposal.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .