Making light of potential catastrophe does not seem morally offensive to me. I mean, if we can't laugh about the fact that we're all going to die someday and suffer in the meantime, what can we laugh about?
But I take a much more uncompromising line on the formal demands of the double dactyl. While "meteorology" is a double dactylic word, "meteorologically" has eight syllables and requires some serious elision to shoehorn it into the meter: mee tee ruh loj ik lee. Somebody else has already pointed out that your line 7 is a syllable short, and "might just be" in line 6 might just be a little bit of metrical padding.
Furthermore, although I understand that "toast" in the final line is a colloquialism that shouldn't be taken too literally, the term seems out of place here. It's intense heat that turns bread into toast, not high wind, rain, and snow.
So the problem for me isn't that the poem jokes about something that isn't really funny. (Lots of good comedy, maybe most good comedy, is about stuff that's not funny.) The problem is that it does its joking without the lapidary deftness that's so essential in a compact light verse form.
|