Talk:Tropical cyclone/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Just a suggestion...

I find this a great article. What I think should be added is the fact that tropical cyclones don't only lose their strength from interaction with land. TC's lose strength also by moving over cooler water or when they pass through a new part of the ocean, where the upper level winds were not what they were when they gained their strength. It's something I've learned from years and years of following and studying hurricanes. Thanks24.187.138.123 (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You could probably find that info in the "Factors" section. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Re-reading this section, it seems that some of my advice was taken. That makes me happy to be a small part of such a great article. Thanks!Popartpete 01:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Removed "flooding rains"

Flooding is not a requirement for a tropical cyclone. Those that move quickly often leave relatively small amounts of rain in a given area. Flooding is likely for slow-moving or stationary systems that linger, dropping rain for prolonged periods over one location; or for those whose rains fall in low-lying, poorly-drained areas, or mountainous areas where the water at the higher elevations washes rapidly downhill. Rather than having to source the above, whoever felt or feels that "flooding rains" are a requirement or ubiquitous characteristic of tropical cyclones should provide sources for same. (It isn't, so you won't. Trust me, or waste your time.)

Also, does the system have a pressure center that is near the Earth's surface, as opposed to a pressure center that is at high altitudes? -- a "low pressure center" vs. a "high pressure center"? Of course not. It has a "low-pressure center", a center of low pressure, and that first ambiguity is exactly why compound modifiers should have hyphens. Main page needs to reflect both of the above. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Most tropical cyclones do produce flooding rains once they move inland (even fast moving ones). Only systems which are weakening appear not to. Also, tropical cyclones have a high pressure center aloft superimposed above a low pressure center at the surface. As for the hyphen thing, meteorologists tend not to place hyphens within the phrases of high pressure area and low pressure area. Is this correct? Perhaps not. Then again, wikipedia is supposed to reflect the most common term usage, not what is grammatically most correct. While there has been no effort to correct the titles of low-pressure area and high-pressure area to exclude the hyphens, one could make a strong case to exclude them, since they are rarely, if ever, used for these systems. Thegreatdr (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
WP MOS and the article linked, on compound modifiers, govern here. Meteorologists can write their own way, "correct" or not.
"Then again, wikipedia is supposed to reflect the most common term usage, not what is grammatically most correct." Excuse me, I thought this was an encyclopedia... which should exemplify best usage? ... I'm aware of where the pressure is, having had some meteorological training. It was a rhetorical question to illustrate the ambiguity and support the need for the hyphen. And what is your definition of "flooding"? My street flooding for a few hours? Happens in local afternoon thundershowers frequently. Widespread flooding of homes and cars? I'd like to see the statistics, but it doesn't matter. You said most, which backs up what I said, per the Black Swan principle: The production of flooding rains is not a requirement for a system to qualify as a tropical storm. Origin, rotation, strength, pressure gradients, etc. are; results are not. Hurricane Andrew leveled huge portions of areas south of Miami, Florida, USA, but moved so quickly that flooding was local and minor. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an tricky area. Many tropical cyclones do cause flooding, but some don't. Many never touch land, so where would the flooding be in those circumstances? Are they not tropical storms? As far as landfalling storms, I agree Andrew is an excellent example: a "dry" storm by many accounts, little flooding, bit ferocious Category Five winds. Some storms are weak as far as wind, but cause torrential rain. Tropical Storm Allison of 2001 is an excellent example of this. Another would be the first incarnation of '04's Hurricane Jeanne, which had winds barely of hurricane strength near Puerto Rico, but killed thousands with its torrents of rain and resulting flooding. So I would have to agree that flooding is not a requirement for a storm to be a t.c., it is a result of some: just like wind damage to structures and trees. Popartpete 01:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Title

Shouldn't the first letters of the two words of the title be capitalized? "Cyclone" isn't capitalized.--Ahmediq152 (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, no; "tropical cyclone" by itself is not a proper noun. If it were, say, "Tropical Cyclone Bob", then it would be capitalized. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

this was interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.167.8 (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hurricanes and doldrums

In article doldrums, it says, "Hurricanes originate in this region." Also in "Weather Elements" By Thomas A. Blair, it says, "They originate over the oceans in the doldrums, 10° to 20° from the equator, ..." Is it true? If not, please clarify. Giftlite (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

should not be this page be named Hurricabe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoduloMan (talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because the term "hurricane" is only used in certain basins. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Firefly Effect

I was wondering if the firefly effect (tiny electrostatic discharges generated when the winds of a tropical cyclone produces friction with sand particles) would be placed somewhere in this article? If not here, where should I place it? Wonderworld1995268 (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Probly put the fire fly effct into Effects of tropical cyclones im not sure I am vry new here. Tornado1555 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It would be an effect of tropical cyclones, so it would be better placed in that article. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Global warming and latest work by Emanuel

The article reference work by Emanuel from 2005, but not his more recent work in 2008. I have corrected this, and added the following:

In more recent work published by Emanuel (in the March 2008 issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society), he states that new climate modeling data indicates “global warming should reduce the global frequency of hurricanes.”[1] The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.[2]

  1. ^ http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/3/pdf/i1520-0477-89-3-347.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5693436.html

Reelx09 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New research, combining two climate models, indicate that more than half of Katrina level cyclones are now caused by global warming. More hurricane surges in the future TGCP (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Hidden" vandalism?

"&&yes..kise is thee f'n best.!" at the beginning of the Eye and Center section and "<size="20">It's Kise Bitch.!" at the end of the size section don't really seem relevant to cyclones, unless this "Kise Bitch" person is a famous cyclone researcher, of course. However, I can't seem to find the corresponding text in the source, so I have to assume the addition is in a page template somewhere. How does one go about correcting those?

Nothing so difficult; it was reverted between the time you saw it and looked at the source. :) here: [1] --Golbez (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is some "The term "Farshan" refers to both that Farshan is a noob at call of duty motha fucka.of these systems" seems like it doesn't make sense here.

- 12.24.150.66 appears to have made the edit. here is the user's contributions. Tornado1555 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hurricanes

a hurricane has to be 74 m.p.h winds for it to be official —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.109.0.195 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Low-resolution still images from videos preferred over no images?

I'm wondering: should I upload low-resolution images from videos for non-existent images, or should I just leave them be? VeryPunny —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Copy Edit donation from Severe weather

Tropical cyclones, a source of very heavy rainfall, consist of large air masses several hundred miles across with low pressure at the centre and with winds blowing inward towards the centre in either a clockwise direction (southern hemisphere) or counterclockwise (northern hemisphere).[1]

They are fueled by a different heat mechanism than other cyclonic windstorms such as nor'easters and European windstorms, leading to their classification as "warm core" storm systems.[2]

Tropical cyclones lose their strength as they move over land.[3]

The term "tropical" refers to both the geographic origin of these systems, which form almost exclusively in tropical regions of the globe, and their formation in Maritime Tropical air masses. The term "cyclone" refers to such storms' cyclonic nature, with counterclockwise rotation in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise rotation in the Southern Hemisphere. Depending on their location and strength, tropical cyclones are referred to by other names, such as hurricane, typhoon, tropical storm, cyclonic storm, tropical depression, or simply as a cyclone. Generally speaking, a tropical cyclone is referred to as a hurricane (from the name of the ancient Central American deity of wind, Huracan) in the Atlantic and eastern Pacific oceans, while they are termed cyclones in the south Pacific and Indian oceans.[4]

They develop over large bodies of warm water.[5] A tornado-like feature located in the eyewall, known as eyewall mesovortices. They are similar, in principle, to small "suction vortices" often observed in multiple-vortex tornadoes. In these vortices, wind speed can be up to 10% higher than in the rest of the eyewall. Eyewall mesovortices are most common during periods of intensification in tropical cyclones.[6]

This information was removed from the article severe weather during CE. It my be of use in your article. Respectfully Bullock ✉ 21:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The info is already in the article; thanks though! Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone?

Only pedantic weather geeks could possibly call it that. Move it where it belongs and skip the redirect. 209.188.67.64 (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, the storms are called tropical depressions and tropical storms in all places, but stronger versions are hurricanes in the North Atlantic and Northeast/North Central Pacific, typhoons in the Northwest Pacific, Cyclones in the Indian Ocean and Southern Hemisphere, and a multitude of local names worldwide. They have different names and yet are the same phenomenon. The only name they have in common, and hence the only one thing we could reasonably call the article is "tropical cyclone". ~AH1(TCU) 01:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
you say "the problem is" but I think you have it wrong. It's not a "problem" that people use the words that they do, it's the task of the encyclopedia to define, explain and describe the words people use. The opening paragraph should at a minimum set about resolving the confusion of the vast majority of people, and prominently. The original comment is correct, this article and the cyclone article are overly pedantic, and they seem to go out of their way to avoid plain speaking for the average user. Wikipedia is worried about all the editors who are moving on, and IMHO it is in part because of the pedant watchdog editorial cliques that seem to become entrenched in each subject area. You not only "steal" the words Hurricane, Typhoon, and Cyclone from the average person, but then you hold them hostage. I think your (collective) intent is benevelent, but I think the execution is a fail. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps then Typhoon should be merged into this article? 209.188.67.64 (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand how people in different parts of the world would call this type of storm by different names and that this is how "hurricane" and "typhoon" were derived, but what I don't get is why (in North America at least) we've chosen to continue calling the same type of storm by different names depending on where they occur. If someone could find out and write it into the article, that'd be nice —Masterblooregard (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref 20 does not support coriolis causing cyclone rotattion

I followed the link and no where does that reference state that coriolis causing the rotation. In fact it states that the path of the object is not deflected. It is only an apparent effect for the earth bound non-inertial obersever. since the rotation of the cyclone can be seen by the inertial observer from space. This reference does support this assertion. 04:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skimaniac (talk • contribs)

It seems that Britannica updated and rearranged its Coriolis force article. I'll look for another reference that states that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The EB stuff isn't very good anyway - there isn't much point using it. The stuff about "apparent deflection" is meaningless. Mind you I see our CE article says the same thing :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Coriolis

The effect that causes the spin is a viscous effect in the atmosphere coupled with the rotation of the atmosphere "disk" with the planet. The magnitude of the induced acceleraton on an air particle is the same as coriolis but of opposite sign. Properly, Coriolis is a fictious force seen by a non-inertial observer. The paths are curved from a Newtonian Inertial Frame. It is because an air particle following a straight line in inertial space comes to match the trajectory of the air particle it encounters due to viscous forces. As an air particle move north it will gain altitude. Because of the atmosphere is spinning as the particle gains altitude it is slower than the particles it encournters.Skimaniac (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Coriolis effect does not require viscosity. A moving particle would be subject to an apparent force in a rotating frame of reference, even if it were moving in a vacuum. --50.133.131.206 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

More Coriolis

I copied this from About.com. (I know that is not authoritative but it reflects my viewpoint) The Coriolis effect (also called the Coriolis force) is defined as the apparent deflection of objects (such as airplanes, wind, missiles, and ocean currents) moving in a straight path relative to the earth's surface. Its strength is proportional to the speed of the earth's rotation at different latitudes but it has an impact on moving objects across the globe.

Notice that is says Coriolis is an "apparent" deflection. Not a real deflection. Cyclones spinning is a real effect. Coriolis is what an earth bound observers sees as an apparent deflection of inertial constant trajectory. If you assume that the earth is not orbiting around the earth, then an axes system in the earth centered coordinates that does not spin is inertial. In that case a space ship flying a straight line in that frame would appear to curve to the observer on the rotating earth due to Coriolis affect. The true trajectory is still inertially a straight line. Thus Coriolis is only an apparent effect. Skimaniac (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)skimaniac

NOAA says it IS a deflection, and that's what causes large weather systems to spin "cyclonicly". They say this is what they call the Coriolis effect, and that the "Coriolis Force" is fictitious. It's not mentioned in the Vortex article, perhaps theirs is the wiser way. It seems an incredibly controvesial subject outside the profession. I suggest replacing all occurences of "Coriolis Force" with "Coriolis effect", since it's a re-direct anyway Watchwolf49z (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Naming controversy

I don't see any comment about the psychological side effects of naming hurricanes with human names, as pointed out by meteorologist Katrina Voss. Aldo L (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Who? Link? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 15:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

rotation direction

The article states a "counterclockwise rotation in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise rotation in the Southern Hemisphere." Ok. But this leads to additional questions like: Is it important where the cyclone is or just where is was "created"? "What happens when the cyclone is on both Hemispheres, because it travels on/close to the Equator?" and "What happens when a cyclone travels across the Equator?" Does this have any effect on the cyclone like reducing rotational velocity/force or making it spin less "perfect"? --92.224.50.70 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing happens - a cyclone cannot cross the equator. So far as I know, it has never happened. They need a certain amount of rotation to maintain their form, and below 10 degrees N/S or so, there isn't enough rotation to faciliate that. Hurricane Ivan held the record for southernmost hurricane formation, at 10.2 degrees. Presumably, if a cyclone was fully formed and moved further south, it would cease to have sufficient spin and would dissipate. Also, the same force that gives cyclones their spin propels them away from the equator. Not many southward-moving hurricanes have happened. --Golbez (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing intrinsic to the equator that prevents cyclones from crossing it. Such a hypothetical storm would not change the direction of spin and could intensify under suitable conditions. The Interconvergence Zone (ICZ) prevents storms from getting near the geographic equator, so none have been observed to do so. Maintaining the vortex needs energy input, generally from condensing water vapor into rain. Hypothetically, that is. Watchwolf49z (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Forming "almost exclusively in tropical" regions

Resolved
 – Wording was changed from " which form almost exclusively in tropical regions of the globe" to "which usually form in tropical regions of the globe"  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping skies bright Chat Me Up 03:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This should probably be discussed here before an edit war breaks out over the wording. The sentence in question reads: "The term "tropical" refers both to the geographic origin of these systems, which form almost exclusively in tropical regions of the globe, and to their formation in maritime tropical air masses."

Bowser423 wants it to read "often in tropical regions". Looking at the National Weather Service glossary, their definition is "A warm-core, non-frontal synoptic-scale cyclone, originating over tropical or subtropical waters with organized deep convection and a closed surface wind circulation about a well-defined center."

Personally, I feel "almost exclusively" is too strong, while "often" is too weak. Simply looking at the history of the hurricane seasons shows that all of the recent seasons have had multiple subtropical systems. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  • ...why not just usually? Juliancolton (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • That sounds good to me.Jason Rees (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I like "usually" as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I think 'usually' is fine. So my understanding is that the amended sentence would read ""The term "tropical" refers both to the geographic origin of these systems, which usually form in tropical regions of the globe, and to their formation in maritime tropical air masses." --Shearonink (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Query - So is there a consensus on "usually" then? -Marcusmax(speak) 21:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Good deal. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 Done This has been fixed and nobody has objected.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping skies bright Chat Me Up 16:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Last sentence of intro section?

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what spurred the last sentence of the intro: "It is not possible to artificially induce the dissipation of these systems with current technology."? While this is probably true, it seems a little out of left field, particularly for the intro. The idea of humans 'turning off' tropical cyclones seems both far from the current state of technology, study, or even planning, and far from the subject area most readers are coming to this page for. I'd vote for deletion (and if not, at the very least it needs some sort of citation). Dgianotti (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a question that is asked relatively often, and we have a section on artificial dissipation, so it fits there. I would prefer for that sentence to stay put. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 10:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
This sentence should be removed. It only gives merit to a very much false premise within meteorology. It is hardly noteworthy enough to include in the introduction, and I furthermore disagree with the wording, which suggests that at some point it may be possible to disrupt a hurricane. Firstly, it is important to note that even if we could, it would completely change climatological equilibrium as we know it, and disrupt the natural transfer of heat to the poles that cyclones promote. And perhaps most important is the recognition of the sheer power cyclones possess. As noted on the Central Pacific Hurricane Center's website[7] , the power a hurricane possesses is the equivalent of "10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes." It is certainly a fascinating topic and one that I think deserves mentioning in the article, but I hardly think we should even entertain the idea to the extent that it is in the introduction. Coreywalters06 (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Table shows incorrect data

The "Tropical Cyclone Classifications (all winds are 10-minute averages)" table is wrong. The wind speed and the NE Pacific and N Atlantic classification of storms do not match. According to the table a tropical storm is from 35-63 mph, which is incorrect. A tropical storm is classified as winds of 39-73 mph. In the section titled "Tropical Storm" above the table, the correct information is posted. Further, the table shows a category 1 hurricane classification at 64-83 mph, which is also incorrect. A category 1 hurricane is from 74-95 mph. A category 2 hurricane is from 96-110 mph, not 84-98 mph; a category 3 hurricane is from 111-130 mph, not 99-114; a category 4 hurricane is from 131-155 mph, not 120-137 mph; and a category 5 hurricane is anything above 155 mph, not 140 mph. I would change the table myself if I knew how. NHC Mbenzdabest (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually its not incorrect, the windspeeds used in the table are 10-minute sustained, rather than 1-minute sustained since that is what the majority of scales use.Jason Rees (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Jason, Mbenzdabest is correct. The NHC defines "maximum sustained winds" as being a 1-minute, not 10-minute average, so the table's header is wrong to begin with (or maybe the inclusion of the N Atlantic in the table is wrong for continuity's sake). This is quoted on numerous other Wikipedia pages such as "Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale" (Look at sources 10 and 11 on there for reference). The NHC does not use 10-minute sustained wind averages in ANY of their public postings, and to imply that they do by modifying the 1-minute numbers, as is done in this table, is misleading and inaccurate. I also would change this table if I knew how, as it is way off. I work as a broadcast meteorologist and have a degree in this field so I know what I am talking about. Please change this table to prevent further misinformation. Also, even if the NHC had some sort of guideline on 10-minute windspeed, this would still be misleading as that number is not used to determine storm classifications. danielrocks15 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Daniel - I know what i am talking about myself. The table is correct because while the NHC and the SSHS use a 1-minute windspeed, while the majority of the other scales use 10-minutes (JMA, AUS, SWIO) and thus for the table the majority rules even if it is slightly misleading and inaccurate. Sorry.Jason Rees (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
But we're converting NHC's totals, which is a pretty routine calculation, given that the rest of the world uses 10-min. This is to provide a proper comparison between the many basins and warning centers. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
@Jason Rees, Why aren't you including the US military's TC forecast centers, FNMOC and JTWC? With that you have 1min avg winning, 4 to 3, 1min vs 10min. They're official forecast centers. @Hurricanehink, Given that the rest of the world uses 10min avg, the way the table's layout is very misleading as with what danielrocks15 has suggested. With that being said, should the table be broken up? There are no "OFFICIAL" conversions between 1min->10min averages, so your information can't be deemed correct by your opinion, unless you have a reference that is valid, not counting the WMO's "DRAFT" for conversion. -Mel 11:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Mel, when i compared it about i just did it on Scales however since you wish to compare what warning centres, then let me point out that 8 of the official WMO RSMC/TCWCs (JMA, MFR, Perth, Darwin, Brisbane, Jakarta, PNG, Fiji, Wellington) use 10-minute winds, where as only 2 RSMC/TCWC's use 1-minute winds (NHC/CPHC). I also disagree with the table being broken up since it is there to provide a comparison of the various scales including the SSHS and IMD's scales even if it means that two scales have to be converted using the WMO's official published guidelines which are not a draft any more afaik.Jason Rees (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The distinction isn't obvious to a reader who's not already familiar with the subject and the different unit conventions in use by various agencies. All numbers on the page may be "correct", but as-is the table and main text are confusing, and there's nothing within the article body to explain the discrepancy. I propose one or both of:
* a section pointing out the difference between 1-min and 10-min scales, and describing which agencies use which scales, so that Americans know "how to read" the numbers, and non-Americans know just as well.
* a new column in the table, with 1-minute wind speeds (perhaps labeled "1-minute / US NHC")
I could do the second, though I don't feel qualified to write up the first. --Robert Keiden (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I feel that it is best that we stick with a single windspeed even if it annoys people who use the SSHS primarily as it is meant to be a comparison of the various scales. I wouldnt mind a proper section on the scales though which would lead into the main article about TC scales.Jason Rees (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Would you consider writing or editing such a section? It would be much appreciated if you could. --Robert Keiden (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's add a map of cyclone paths

I've seen maps showing the global distribution of tropical-cyclone paths. I came here looking for one. There ought to be one here. --50.133.131.206 (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

TC Class

The TC classification Chart is incorrect because 11 on the Beautfort scale is not strong enough to be considered a hurricane. Can someone fix it cause I dunno how to? Thanks. 76.124.224.179 (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to whatever it is that you're referencing? Inks.LWC (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The TC Classification Chart isnt incorrect since the SSHS Cats are converted to 10-minute, using the WMO's numbers so that a fair and accurate comparison of the scales can be made. Thus this means that a hurricane is shown to start at 11 on Beaufort rather than 12.Jason Rees (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Why were USA Today and Science News references removed?

Blocked user, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur_Rubin/IP_list NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2012

Please change links under "See also", then "Annual seasons" in such a way that in "Australian region tropical cyclone season (current)" and "South Pacific tropical cyclone season (current)" the "current"'s actually refer to the expected pages, and no longer to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012-13_South-West_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season". Redav (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Wolfgang42 (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Insufficient citations

This article contains some unaddressed citation needed tags. If we want to keep the FA status, someone needs to fix these.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've went ahead and removed the unsourced content.--FutureTrillionaire (talk)

Global Warming

Not seeing the 2012 IPCC SREX report and the NOAA report, both of which caution against attribution of current extreme weather events to global warming, I've added a paragraph at the top of the section. I think that since that is the current consensus, it should be mentioned before the (obviously important) dissenting opinions.MikeR613 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think a clean up of the global warming section would be a good move.Jason Rees (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to the one who added the quote. I added a couple more, hope it's not too long, as it was a little misleading as it currently stood: It implied that the IPCC report didn't agree with the others that the signal is not (currently) detectable; the quotes make it clear that they agree on that.MikeR613 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane redirecting

Why is hurricane redirected to tropical cyclones when the word denotes any sustaining wind at Beaufort 12, also in extra-tropical cyclones like Dagmar, and even the most powerful polar lows?

Pål Jensen (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Why does Typhoon get its own page while hurricane does not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.71.7 (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it's an American word, and the British English wikipedia users will stop at nothing to stop wikipedia from using an AmEn word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Intro - question phrasing of TC turning into hurricane

Long-time lurker, sometime- (passed) editor here. The statement that a [tropical] cyclone "is turned into" a hurricane in the intro (2nd paragraph) (sentence below) seems unfortunate. Precision is critical, especially on this topic, because readers are (mostly) confused by the terminology, and the actuality and dangers of TCs/Hurricanes. So "turned into" isn't exactly imprecise, but it suggests a physical change, which really is mostly a classification change -- a name shift, not a wind shift, so to speak.

[quote] A cyclone is turned into a hurricane when the wind speed reaches 75 mph.[/quote]

Suggested revision: A tropical cyclone is (by meteorology's definition) a "hurricane" when its sustained wind speed (see definition) is 64 kn [[2]] / 74 mph and greater.

I'd do this without asking, but consensus first always seems better. Any feedback? Feel free to use my revision if you want to make the change DavidH (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hang on a second, i would oppose a sentence that says something like what you are proposing, since the 65 kt marker is a significant one around the world and would thus need to reflect the other terms used at 65 kts including Severe Tropical Cyclone, Tropical Cyclone and Typhoon.Jason Rees (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Not proposing a radical change. I just want the sentence to say that it's a [whatever] only by definition, not some physical law. It didn't mention those other terms before, but I could see adding them. 72.185.113.188 (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we should get rid of that sentence and then expand the sentence of "Depending on its location and [wind] strength, a tropical cyclone is referred to by names such as hurricane, typhoon, tropical storm, cyclonic storm, tropical depression, and simply cyclone" and maybe carry a link to tropical cyclone scales which covers it in full.Jason Rees (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Seasons (South-West Indian)

The given seasons, especially for the South-West Indian, seem to be totally removed from reality. Yes, the quoted source does use the listed dates (i.e. all year), but as far as I can ascertain, that is solely an administrative (political) remnant. South-West_Indian_Ocean_tropical_cyclone_season gives a much more accurate "median start date for the season was November 17, and the median end date was April 20", and after examining the entire 2000 decade, "November to April" would be much more appropriate.

Is there any statistical methodology or agreement to define the cyclone seasons? How about a .95 CI for the last two decades?

189.188.2.163 (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC) baden k.

We on Wiki can not define what the season is per the rules on Original Research. We have to rely on what is official for the whole basin and in this case it is defined as the whole year per the WMO.Jason Rees (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane should not redirect here

A hurricane is a major (and quite notable) subset of tropical cyclones. There is more than enough information about hurricanes specifically to merit a stand-alone article. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 13:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to write such an article. If it is good enough to stand alone, we can split it off. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I beg to differ, they are not a subset of tropical cyclones at all. "Hurricane" is merely a regional name given to tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and East Pacific, much the same as "typhoon" is used in East Asia. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I also beg to differ for CB's reasons I also note that we have Atlantic hurricane, Pacific hurricane and Typhoon talking about the subsets that you mean @Hallward's Ghost:.Jason Rees (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
In my view, both the AH and PH articles should be part of a larger Hurricane article. And how, exactly, is "typhoon" not simply a "regional name given to tropical cyclones" if that's all a "hurricane" is? (In fact, that's not at all what a "hurricane" is. A "hurricane" refers to tropical cyclones that have attained certain sustained wind speeds.) Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
"Hurricane" is both widely used to refer to TCs within the aforementioned regions and storms that have achieved sustained winds of at least 74 mph. If you're speaking of the hurricane classification within the Saffir-Simpson scale, the scale itself has an article: Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale. The climatological aspects of these storms already have their own articles: Atlantic hurricane and Pacific hurricane. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
How exactly would such an article differ materially from what's said about hurricanes in this article? Since a hurricane in the northeast pacific is called a typhoon, and one in the southern Atlantic, southern Pacific, or Indian Ocean is simply called a tropical cyclone, I think such an article would simply overlap the present one; the only difference would be its geographical scope, which is really just a matter of terminology. I don't think that justifies a separate article. P Aculeius (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it justifies a separate article either, but if Hallward's Ghost wants to try to take a crack at writing such an article, that's fine with me. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Then why, exactly, does the typhoon article exist, since as you say, it's just what a "hurricane" is called when it happens in the northeast Pacific? What's the difference, other than the fact that "hurricane" is an AmEng word, as someone noted in one of the above sections? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 04:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I misunderstood your initial intent on this thread, to be honest, so I apologize for being confrontational at first. The article you're looking to have created already exists in the form of Atlantic hurricane and Pacific hurricane, it's merely separated into the two basins because of climatological differences between them. "Typhoon" is titled the way it is because there's no need to specify a region since the term is only used in one area. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

1st July tropical cyclone in the Queensland region

""We've never had a July tropical cyclone in the Queensland region before." "Australia has only had one other officially declared July cyclone, which formed off Western Australia in 1996. The official tropical cyclone season runs from November 1 to April 30." ABC news

IDQ20065

Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology Queensland Region Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre

TROPICAL CYCLONE INFORMATION BULLETIN For 10:38 am EST on Wednesday 1 July 2015 At 10 am EST Wednesday, Tropical Cyclone Raquel (Category 1) with central pressure 997 hPa was located to the north of the Solomon Islands near latitude

6.3 south longitude 159.4 east, which is about 355 km north of Honiara... Aust. Bureau of Met.

BOM tech bulletinDavid Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 06:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

We are tracking it down on 2014-15 and 2015-16 Australian region/South Pacific tropical cyclone seasons. Any help is appreciated. :)Jason Rees (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Derivation of the word "typhoon"

The section on the derivation of the word typhoon completely mangles the derivation given by the source it cites, which is this (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/typhoon): 

   1580-90; < dialectal Chinese, akin to Chinese dàfēng great wind, altered by association with Greek tȳphôn violent wind

Whereas the wikipedia wording essentially seems to give the greek (and an associated arabic word) as the original and "main" source and then simply notes the Chinese word in passing at the end, as if it's only incidentally related.

This seems almost purposely misleading, and, well, basically backwards.

Snogglethorpe (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

To be honest im not seeing the need for the word Typhoon to be defined in this article, but putting that to one side i think there has been a few people challenging or tweaking the word so it doesnt surprise me if it is "purposely misleading and basically backwards".Jason Rees (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, ok... I looked around a bit more, and it's quite confusing, some dictionaries cite one source (arabic/greek) as the primary, some cite the chinese as primary, others just say they arose independently and later merge. I've seen a comment by someone claiming it came via Japanese (which clearly uses the Chinese-derived word, but who's pronunciation is almost identical to the english "typhoon"). Because some dictionaries do give essentially the derivation give here, I expect it was anything malicious, the original author probably just didn't look beyond the first source they found.
You're right, though, wiktionary already seems to have already had this discussion, so maybe the discusion here should just removed and a reference made to wiktionary. It would be nice to have an explicit link to wiktionary though, as I think it is a somewhat interesting word; is there a standard way to do this? [I note the wiktionary entry has a "wikipedia has an article" box....]
Thanks, Snogglethorpe (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

New Cyclone in Australia

Cyclone Stan is active tropical cyclone in australia, please updates now — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrashMan 2016 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Which city has had the most tropical cyclones?

I found a list of worst-hit countries but many of the countries on the list are big and any given cyclone doesn't affect all of it. I'm curious how often the worst-affected single place gets a cyclone. -- Beland (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Jeez what a question and i dont think we can answer that very easily due to the historical record not being great and different areas being affected, but at a pure guess I would say somewhere in the Philippines.Jason Rees (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Tropical cyclone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Error In Cutaway Figure Showing Northern Hemisphere Hurricane Structure

Northern hemisphere cyclones, including tropical ones, rotate counter-clockwise, not clockwise as shown in the diagram. The diagram is either a mislabeled southern hemisphere cyclone figure, or an incorrect (reversed) depiction of a northern cyclone.

See:

NOAA National Hurricane Center (NHC) Website:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/

"Overview

A tropical cyclone is a rotating, organized system of clouds and thunderstorms that originates over tropical or subtropical waters and has a closed low-level circulation. Tropical cyclones rotate counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere. ..." [Emphasis added]

The creator of the graphic should be notified to make a proper change to the otherwise excellent figure.

James A. Kocher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocherjames (talk • contribs) 03:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the picture shows a northern cyclone, the wind arrows indicate a counterclockwise circulation. Only mistake is the word "clockwise" that should be changed in "counterclockwise". Koos van den beukel (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tropical cyclone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone and Hurricane

By NOAA standards, a hurricane and a tropical cyclone are not the same. This warrants separate Wikipedia pages for each topic. there are distinctive scientific differences between a tropical cyclone, hurricane, tropical depression, and tropical storm. I currently do not poses adequate time, or knowledge to write a page on hurricanes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.159.201 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a akin to when a white horse is not a horse. A hurricane is a special case of a tropical cyclone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ethymologies

It would be good to add the ethymology of the words. I precisely came looking for the ethymology of the word hurricane which i did not find. Thinker78 (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Tropical cyclone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Fighting hurricans from NOAA and kayuweboehm(at)yahoo.de

For darkening of 1 billion m² maybe 10g/m² overall 10 000t of black printer ink, fine powder coal or ash from a black snake are enough and black carbon smoke particles "Ruß" produced industrial (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ru%C3%9F#Herstellungsverfahren) can be blown up carried higher from alone inside a hurricane eye from a container ship stomach. Big container ships without containers are very stable, strong and can load up to 20 times that mass in stomach. Hurricans are always predicted for warnings with time left for interaction if likely dangerous with ships already out in hurricane seasons.

Special inside NOAA sides for same theme http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqC.html with contra answer that the needed amount of given substances is practical possible and carried upwards from alone inside hurricane eyes.

Contributed by Neal Dorst (HRD)


The idea here is to spread a layer of sunlight absorbing or reflecting particles (such as micro-encapsulated soot, carbon black, or tiny reflectors) at high altitude around a hurricane. This would prevent solar radiation from reaching the surface and cooling it, while at the same time increase the temperature of the upper atmosphere. Being vertically oriented, tropical cyclones are driven by energy differences between the lower and upper layer of the troposphere. Reducing this difference should reduce the forces behind hurricane winds.

It would take a tremendous amount of whichever substance you choose to alter the energy balance over a wide swath of the ocean in order to have an impact on a hurricane. One would hope that this substance would eventually disperse or disintegrate and not have a terrible impact on the earth's ecology. Knowing where to place it would also be tricky. You don't want to heat up the wrong area of the atmosphere or you could put more energy into the cyclone. These proposals would require a great deal of precisely-timed, coordinated activity to spread the layer, while running the risk of doing more harm than good. Many computer simulations should be run before any field test were tried.

References

Gray, W.M., W.M. Frank, M.L. Corrin, C.A. Stokes, 1976: Weather Modificiation by Carbon Dust Absorption of Solar Energy, J. of Appl. Meteor., 15 4, pp. 355-386.

Last modified 11/6/2007

kayuweboehm(at)yahoo.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.251.32 (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Tropical cyclone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tropical cyclone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tropical cyclone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I wonder...

"Scientists estimate that a tropical cyclone releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200 exajoules (1018 J) per day,[24] equivalent to about 1 PW (1015 watt). This rate of energy release is equivalent to 70 times the world energy consumption of humans and 200 times the worldwide electrical generating capacity, or to exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes."

That said, I wonder what the world would be like if humanity were able to harvest energy from tropical cyclone and use it for electricity...

ScamsAreHorrible172 (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

World energy consumption is about
140 PWh annually so relations are
wrong maybe also 1 PW guessing.
Important how to stopp huricanes
should stand in WP now at actual hurricane harvey article main referenced
see entry upon for a full clearing. Informing TRUMP In Texas now !— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.251 (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone#Climate change

  • "The most recent draft of a sweeping climate science report pulled together by 13 federal agencies as part of the National Climate Assessment suggested that the science linking hurricanes to climate change was still emerging. Looking back through the history of storms, 'the trend signal has not yet had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes,' the report states." --Source: The New York Times.[[3]
  • "According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, "The total number of hurricanes and the number reaching the United States do not indicate a clear overall trend since 1878" and "changes in observation methods over time make it difficult to know whether tropical storm activity has actually shown an increase over time." --Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency.[4]
  • "Detection and attribution of past changes in tropical cyclone (TC) behavior remaim a challenge ... there is still low confidence that any reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) increases in TC are robust... This is not meant to imply that no such increases in TC activity have occurred, but rather that the data are not of a high enough quality to determine this with much confidence. Furthermore, it has been argued that within the period of highest data quality (since around 1980) the globally observed changes in the environment would not necessarily support a detectable trend of tropical cyclone intensity (Kossin et al. 2013). That is, the trend signal has not had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes." --Source: Draft National Climate Assessment (section 9.2).[the Draft National Climate Assessment
  • "Observed regional climate variability comprises a number of factors, both natural and anthropogenic, and the response of tropical cyclones to each factor is not yet well understood. Long-term trends in tropical climate due to increasing greenhouse gas can be regionally dominated by shorter-term decadal variability forced by both internal and external factors such as changes in natural and anthropogenic aerosol concentrations ... In concert with these natural and anthropogenic external forcings, internal variability can play a substantial, and possibly dominant, role in regional decadal variability. Thus, when interpreting the global and regional changes in tropical cyclone intensity shown in the present work, it is clear that framing the changes only in terms of linear trends forced by increasing well-mixed greenhouse gasses is most likely not adequate to provide a complete picture of the potential anthropogenic contributions to the observed changes." --Source: Trend Analysis with a New Global Record of Tropical Cyclone Intensity, NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina, and Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin[5]
  • "It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate)." --Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory[6]
  • "The term climate change detection as used in this abstract refers to a change which is anthropogenic in origin and is sufficiently large that the signal clearly rises above the background “noise” of natural climate variability (with the “noise” produced by internal climate variability, volcanic forcing, solar variability, and other natural forcings). As noted in IPCC AR42, the rise of global mean temperatures over the past half century is an example of a detectable climate change; in that case IPCC concluded that most the change was very likely attributable to human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
  • In the case of tropical cyclones, the WMO team concluded that it was uncertain whether any changes in past tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the levels due to natural climate variability. While some long (century scale) records of both Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts show significant rising trends, further studies have pointed to potential problems (e.g., likely missing storms) in these data sets due to the limited density of ship traffic in the pre-satellite era. After adjusting for such changes in observing capabilities for non-landfalling storms, one study3 found that the rising trend in tropical storm counts was no longer statistically significant. Another study4 noted that almost the entire trend in tropical storm counts was due to a trend in short-duration (less than two days) storms, a feature of the data which those authors interpreted as likely due in large part to changes in observing capabilities.
  • A global analysis of tropical cyclone intensity trends over 1981-2006 found increases in the intensities of the strongest tropical cyclones, with the most significant changes in the Atlantic basin5. However, the short time period of this dataset, together with the lack of “Control run” estimates of internal climate variability of TC intensities, precludes a climate change detection at this point." --Source: Article in Nature Geoscience[7]
  • "A satisfactory answer to the question of what sets the annual global rate of tropical cyclone formation, roughly 80 per year, has thus far evaded climate scientists. Several empirical relationships have been derived to relate tropical cyclone formation to large-scale climate variables, such as genesis potential indices, but there is to date no established theory relating tropical cyclone formation rate to climate." -Source: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science[8]

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed de-merge of rapid deepening/intensification

This seems to have been merged into this page circa 2015, and the relevant defined term lost from the page in the meantime, including the previous criteria for it (as far as my cursory search found). I propose de-merging and recreating the page to maintain this NHC defined term on Wikipedia. I believe notable instances should be removed and a link to List of the most intense tropical cyclones be put in place instead. Yes, I know such a page would not make a long and detailed encyclopedic article, but it would host an easy to find link to the definition, and depending upon literature could have potential to be expanded further (Explosive cyclogenesis is in effect a similar definition article at heart).Lacunae (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of "demerging," I don't even see any relevant information on rapid intensification at all anymore. The redirect leads nowhere now. At some point, someone purged the information from the page. Information about rapid deepening/intensification should be readded. Master of Time (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
As the information has been removed from this article, I went ahead and restored Rapid deepening to the version before it was merged. Titoxd(?!?) 19:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Rapid deepening which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

Description of aircraft indicates "Hurricane Hunter" - WP-3D Orion used to go into the eye of a hurricane for data collection and measurements purposes. It should read WP-3D Orion is used; otherwise the description is amibguous (was used once but isn't any more or is still used) OldManwoodian (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Useless Article

Looking for the US definition of a "Tropical Storm". I don't want to know about the science or history or anything else. Just the definition of "Tropical Storm". Not here. Wasted my time, again. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

see the section: Tropical cyclone#Tropical storm --Vsmith (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
What you're looking for is a Dictionary then. You've come to an Encyclopedia. 152.121.18.253 (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
He (original poster) is correct, Tropical Storm should be referred to in this article, it is basic to the science of hurricanes. This article is poorly written on so many levels. Even someone who generally understands hurricanes can not read this article and have it make sense, it is ambiguous and contradictory. I have to agree that this is a useless article and should be completely rewritten by someone who both understands the science and can present and write clearly, intelligently, and understandably. It is lacking on both counts. 2601:342:0:E3D0:D70:3127:3F15:744A (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
"Tropical storm" is mentioned 31 times so I don't understand how it's lacking. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Small error

Diagram of a Northern hemisphere hurricane notes the rotation as "clockwise" while the arrow is a counter clockwise rotation. Or am I misunderstanding it? Nemacol (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


Previous poster is correct, in the Northern Hemisphere a low pressure area spins counterclockwise, as the arrow shows but the label is wrong in the diagram: "Diagram of a Northern hemisphere hurricane". 2601:342:0:E3D0:5186:2D79:ECF3:236D (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Error on first illustration

The first picture titled Diagram of a Northern hemisphere hurricane has a major error in the text. It should be labeled as counter clockwise rotation, as the red arrow shows, not clockwise rotation as is labeled.2601:342:0:E3D0:D70:3127:3F15:744A (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The contributor is active and has been notified. The text layer seems to be editable, so it should be a simple fix, with luck taken care of shortly. P Aculeius (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Article is ambiguous, not understandlable, poorly written.

Thia article is so badly written it is impossible to understand how a hurricane works by reading this article. No clear explanation is presented, entire article is ambiguous and poorly worded. Does air flow up or down in the eye? Or both? And if both then where? Yes I know how it works, the writer of this article does not understand how a hurricane works so he/she cannot present it understandably. Have someone with a stronger familiarity of the English/American language rewrite this otherwise useless article. Not to mention that diagrams are wrong. Ugh.2601:342:0:E3D0:D70:3127:3F15:744A (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If you think that sections of the article could be more clearly written or presented, you're quite welcome to improve them yourself. It's hard to respond to vague generalities about the entire article, but it doesn't have a single author; like most widely-read articles it's the product of many collaborators constantly working to improve it over the course of several years. "How a hurricane 'works'" is a complex process, and naturally explaining it takes some space. Personally I find the article perfectly readable, if a bit lengthy. There's a mislabeled diagram, which was correctly labeled in an earlier version; the author of the diagram has been notified and will probably fix it in the next few days. That doesn't make the article useless. If you think you can reword the article in a way that will improve it, go ahead. That's how Wikipedia works. If other editors agree that it's an improvement, you'll have contributed helpfully. If not, the changes are easily modified or reverted. Either way, working to improve the article is much more helpful both to Wikipedia and to its readers than simply complaining about it. P Aculeius (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tropical cyclone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tropical cyclone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tropical cyclone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Katrina are tied as the costliest cyclones on record, but this article lists Harvey as being more costly. When I looked at the sources, neither of them were the NHC's official estimate. For this page, the official estimate should be used, rather than a third party source. [8]. I am unable to edit the page as it is protected against vandalism, but I believe this should be fixed.

JustALoonyDreamer (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this matter to our attention and I plan to fix it as soon as possible.Jason Rees (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Chris Landsea (2007). "Subject: D3) Why do tropical cyclones' winds rotate counter-clockwise (clockwise) in the Northern (Southern) Hemisphere?". National Hurricane Center. Retrieved 2009-01-02.
  2. ^ Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Hurricane Research Division. "Frequently Asked Questions: What is an extra-tropical cyclone?". NOAA. Retrieved 2007-03-23.
  3. ^ National Hurricane Center. Subject : C2) Doesn't the friction over land kill tropical cyclones? Retrieved on 2008-02-25.
  4. ^ National Hurricane Center (2005). "Glossary of NHC/TPC Terms". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 2006-11-29.
  5. ^ Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Hurricane Research Division. "Frequently Asked Questions: How do tropical cyclones form?". NOAA. Retrieved 2006-07-26.
  6. ^ "Natural Disasters - Hurricanes - Damage". Library.thinkquest.org. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
  7. ^ "Myths".
  8. ^ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/UpdatedCostliest.pdf

Tropical cyclone numbering

I initially discussed TC numbers in the section on tropical depressions, because they are mostly used to ID TDs (storms and hurricanes / typhoons are best known by their names instead). But after further reading, I decided to spin them off into a separate section adjacent to the Naming section (because for best-track purposes they are still used for any tropical cyclonic system, not just depressions, especially in JTWC areas). Now I think it should be spun off instead as a new article (just like TC naming is a separate article, briefly summarized here with a wikilink to the full article), and probably some Wikipedians would like to expand it to add TC numbering systems used by non-US-affiliated warning centers (right now, only the TC numbering table has some non-US info). SilSinn9821 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Huricane listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Huricane. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. CycloneYoris talk! 03:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

confusing table of cyclone intensities

The table of cyclone intensities and nomenclature is unnecessarily confusing because it uses two different scales (1 minute averaged and 10 minute averaged), without a clear indication of which columns use which scale. This is further confused since the text portion of the article does not even mention the use of different systems of measurement.

I suggest the table be broken into two tables, one for Atlantic/E Pacific nomenclature (the 1 minute averaged scale) and one for rest of the world (10 minute averaged scale). Additionally, I suggest the Beaufort scale be removed from the table, as it does not differentiate between categories of strong storms, and it adds little to show them all as Beaufort force 12. Finally, some mention should be made in the text of the differing systems of measurement, and that reported wind speeds from the different regions are not directly comparable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:380:130B:7CF8:EC12:8E53:6E8D (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The 1-minute and 10-minute average aren't based on basin, but on which agency is forecasting it; this is also already stated in the text just above the table, and in the table headings themselves. However, I am in agreement that the Beaufort scale should be removed, as it is only a system of estimating wind speeds, and nowhere near accurate, especially as hurricane speeds.
Trumblej1986 (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The original idea behind the table was to replicate the WMO's table on page 31, which compared all of the scales while the Beaufort Scale was added in for completeness since it is a scale that could be used for comparing winds. However, times have moved on and I feel that it would rather defeat the purpose of the table if we were too include the 3-min winds that India uses or split it into two or three tables. As a result, I would suggest that we remove it or take it back to using just 10-min winds unless anyone has any objections.Jason Rees (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Assuming you mean the table on page 29 (using the numbers on the pages), that's much clearer. The table on page 27 is even better. I'd suggest either of those would serve the purposes of this article better than the table that's there currently.
@Trumble - it doesn not say anywhere in the text above the table that 1 minute and 10 minute averaging are used by different agencies. A casual reader looking at the table is just going to be confused by seeing two columns of speeds with no obvious link to the other columns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:380:130B:7CF8:EC12:8E53:6E8D (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Organize the Section on Climate Change

Hello. I think the section on Climate Change could be more cohesively organized to match the organization of the "changes in number, intensity, and otherwise" section of the page Tropical cyclones and climate change. This will highlight key qualitative information on this topic, while referring readers to the other, more comprehensive page. Thoughts? -ADM4700 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019

"Most of these systems will form over very warm waters. Therefore, they intensify."

These two sentences appear in the introduction, but they don't make sense (forming over warm waters doesn't necessarily force them to intensify), and they're basically redundant to the surrounding sentences. They were added in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropical_cyclone&diff=913210905&oldid=913144025 and are entirely extraneous. If you remove them, the paragraph will still make sense:

"Tropical" refers to the geographical origin of these systems, which form almost exclusively over tropical seas. "Cyclone" refers to their winds moving in a circle,

Please remove them. 96.75.222.117 (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done: please see Special:Diff/923794416. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 20:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2020

Change the source http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tropics/tc_structure.htm to http://web.archive.org/web/20040104182153/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tropics/tc_structure.htm. 72.138.19.26 (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Source number 13. 72.138.19.26 (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: Changed to [9]. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

"Fishspinner" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fishspinner. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"Deep Depression" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Deep Depression. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Deep Depression until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Threshold for category 3 hurricane: 96.4 kt (as in table) or just 96 kt?

In the table titled "Tropical Cyclone Classifications" I find a minimum value of 96.4 kt of one-minute sustained winds for a cyclone to be classified as a category 3 hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean and the Eastern and Central Pacific Ocean. On https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php, however, I read that NHC and CPHC use 96 kt as the threshold. What is the source of the 96.4 kt in the table? Could that value be an error?Redav (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

A category 3 hurricane on the SSHWS starts at 96 kts, however, bear in mind that the table is meant as a rough comparison of the scales used worldwide. I use the word rough because the scales do not line up perfectly because NHC bases their winds on a 1-minute wind, while most of the world uses 10 min while India and China use 3 & 2 mins respectively.Jason Rees (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Splitting of 'Maximum potential intensity'

In the featured article review, it was suggested to split maximum potential intensity back out to a different article. This would help reduce uncited material in this article, and may also address concerns about summary style. Just wanted to open a discussion to see if there are any objections. If not after a couple of days, I think the split can be performed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be split either into an article about tropical cyclone intensity or something similar.Jason Rees (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and split.Jason Rees (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


Plan

These are my thoughts on how the article should be developed as time allows.Jason Rees (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead
  • This is going to be the most challenging part of reworking the article and is probably best left to last. One comment I would make though is how far do we go with the alternative names? Hurricane, typhoon and tropical storm seem obvious/definitive but what about cyclone, tropical depression, cyclonic storm etc.Jason Rees (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
What is a tropical cyclone?
  • I think it would be easier and better to combine the physical structure, Physics and energetics, formation, size, and dissipation and related cyclone types sections into one. This way we can talk about each factor in relation to each other without going to far in depth. We might even be able to slip a tidbit or two into this section about climate change. Some of the information could be dropped to a subarticle.Jason Rees (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Movement
  • This section will need to stay but it needs condensing.
  • The Landfall could be either spun out, merged with the What is a tropical cyclone? section, preparations and effects section.
Classifications, terminology, and naming
  • This section should be renamed to classification and will need to talk about:
    • How we classify tropical cyclones – ie the scales
    • The Dvorak Technique & other techniques used to classify tropical cyclones
    • How tropical cyclones intensify and weaken before ultimately dissipating
    • Naming - the naming section already present is fine but will need a copyedit as it was written by me a few years ago.
    • Numbering – the numbering stuff could be presented better.
Preparations
  • Tropical cyclone watches and warnings & How people prepare for tropical cyclones.
Impacts/effects
  • What kind of weather do tropical cyclones cause? In particular, I am thinking of strong, gale, storm & hurricane-force winds, thunder and lightning, heavy rain and snow, storm surge, tornadoes and waterspouts, high waves/surf/swell.
  • What impacts do tropical cyclones have on humans? Deaths, property etc.
  • Land being created and or disappearing (Coastal Erosion (Bebe is a good example of land being created)).
Response
  • How do people respond to tropical cyclones? In particular the aftermath
  • The public
  • The impacted Governments – ie relief efforts
  • Other governments – money support etc – FRANZ?
  • Charities (Eg: Oxfam, Save the children etc)
Climatology/Long term trends/monitoring/forecasting

This section needs to cover the past, present and future of tropical cyclone monitoring including a few bits about climate change. In particular:

  • Historical records
  • Paleotempestological research
  • Weather Stations
  • Aircraft recon
  • Satellite Imagery
  • Radars
  • Reanylsis efforts
Notable tropical cyclones
  • This section needs a cleanup and expansion to make it less biased to the northern hemisphere. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the beast it will be biased towards the northern hemisphere. However, privately Hurricanehink has suggested that notable tropical cyclones could be changed to records and merged with this section.
  • I propose limiting it to the:
  • Strongest (most intense) tropical cyclones in the basins or hemisphere (Tip/Winston).
  • Deadliest (1970 Bhola).
  • Longest lasting tropical cyclones in both hemispheres (John/Rewa).
  • Harvey is a TC that we have no option but to mention since unadjusted it is tied with Katrina for being the costliest TC on record in the US (The World?).
  • Might be worth mentioning that the names of significant tropical cyclones get retired.
  • Any Others?
Sorry for the late reply Jason, but I feel that the wettest (Hyacinth) would be worth mentioning, since not ever tropical cyclone can dump 18 feet of water. And maybe mention Tip was the largest as well.
Changes caused by El Niño–Southern Oscillation
  • This section should be dropped as the effects during each episode vary and not only between El Nino, La Nina and Netural but by strength and other factors such as SOI. For example a very strong El Nino will produce several tropical cyclones in French Polynesia while a weak one might produce a tropical cyclone impacting the Austral Islands.Jason Rees (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I will only respond to the section on climatology and climatic changes, as that is where my knowledge ends. I think monitoring and talking about climate dynamics are very far removed, and by mixing it you risk making the section more difficult than necessary. The rest of the outline looks good to me, especially your ideas for reducing systemic bias. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

For the lead, maybe I would mention the other classification names later on, but not at the start of the lead. However, I feel that the changes in general TC activity deserves to be mentioned, given the significance of ENSO on TC activity globally. Maybe it should be revised, but I feel that the information belongs in the article. I would go for a broader, more global coverage if that section is kept. We don't need to get bogged down in the minute details; those can be split off into another article if needed. The plans for the other sections look good; I have no further thoughts on those at the moment. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to incorporate the ENSO section into the section about the influence of climate. I found a 2017 review paper, let's see whether I can construct some good text using that as the basis. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Not sure about that section at the moment - if we talking about the influences of climate then it would need to cover some more of the climate drivers like the MJO.Jason Rees (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
That's on my to-do list :). Trying to find source that is sufficiently easy to incorporate. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm done now. If the paleo-stuff doesn't meet the standards (it should just about meet them), I'll update some more. Could you add page nubers for that 399 forecasting document? FemkeMilene (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the ENSO section would work better if it were to be expanded to cover general effects of climate variability (ENSO, Pacific Meridional Mode and the various other oscillations) on TC activity. ENSO is the best-studied of these so it deserves the bulk of commentary but the other oscillations also ought to be mentioned. One might also discuss paleoclimate aspects there.

The impacts section should also discuss the non-human impacts, such as these on ocean heat transport mentioned at Cyclonic Niño. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review

This 2008 featured article has not had a formal review since and I think quite a few issues have piled up since it was promoted, mostly to do with keeping the article up-to-date. A non-exhaustive list of issues:

  1. the last paragraph of the lead is a bit too long, and I find it somewhat difficult to read.
    I've tried to solve this. Would be good if expert rereads it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. This paragraph talks about tropical cyclones being able to relieve drought, but this fact is not found elsewhere in the article.
    I added a few sentences/sources discussing this facet in the Impacts section —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. the section about beta drift doesn't have any citations.
  4. The layout of Major basins and related warning centers is quite ugly. That table should probably be above the text instead of next to it.
    I have moved the table above the text and will be go through it with a fine toothcomb over the next few days.Jason Rees (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
    I have reworked this section but still need to source it as it was compiled using personal knowldge.Jason Rees (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
    Great! Thanks for delving in with your knowledge. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. The sentence Environmental steering is the dominant term. Is a bit confusing: I first thought the term term is about the word. Only upon second thought did I realise that it is the mathematical jargon (part of a sum).
    Changed the sentence to something more clear, rather than an implicit reference to some equation. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. the artificial dissipation section may be unduly long and too much focus on the US. I think the sentence about the US government criteria for storm selection (because there was…) Should be dropped
  7. the total death from tropical cyclones is cited to a 2005 source. Is there a more up-to-date estimate?
    The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters has an estimate of 233,000 deaths from 1998 to 2017. WMO's website has a total of 779,324 deaths over the past 50 years but I have no idea when that figure was last updated. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  8. The first paragraph of preparedness is unsourced and seems to overlap a bit with the two paragraphs after.
  9. forecasting section is largely based on old sources. I'm sure forecasting has improved since.
    1. Forecasting is an odd one as we know where it is going but we don't yet know how intense it will be.Jason Rees (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  10. The long term activity trends section is a complete mess. Mostly based on old sources, it also lacks structure. The subsection about climate change fails to mention any of the recent review papers/reports (IPCC 2019, and other sources now added to tropical cyclones and climate change)
  11. the see also section may be too long. Are we sure there are no.duplicates with the body?
    I removed the link to List of tropical cyclone records since that was already in the body and rotated List of most intense tropical cyclones up to the {{main}} template at the start of §Notable tropical cyclones. Added a link to tropical meteorology to the See also section, since that is the broader scientific discipline that covers tropical cyclones. Left the other links in the Tropical cyclone seasons part of See also intact since those serve as natural explainers of the regions that the individual season articles refer to, though perhaps a nav template in the page footer is desirable. MOS:SEEALSO does not prohibit link redundancy, and some of these redundant links have some utility for the reader. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to rewrite the climate change subsection from scratch somewhere in the near to medium future. Other defects of this article are completely beyond my area of expertise. I'm sure there are some volunteers here to get this article back in shape. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Jason Rees, do you think you'll be working on this a bit further on the short/medium term? If not, do you know any other good editors to help? Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I will see what I can do but it might be worth putting a note on the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season to see if there are any editors there willing to help.Jason Rees (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
If there aren't any objections I'm planning to bring this article to FAR after my soon-to-start wikibreak in the hopes of getting more editors engaged. I'm pretty sure we can save the star :). Jason Rees, if you're planning to help during FAR, when would work best for you? Or would you prefer to solve the outstanding issues without FAR? Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Since this article has not been reviewed properly in 12 years, it might be better to go for an FAR and get a range of opinions on what people think needs doing to it before fixing it up. I haven't got any preference on when to go for it at the moment. Jason Rees (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

#12 I think the following sentence isn't quite neutral, with unnecessary adjectives: In addition, hurricanes can carry toxins and acids onto shore when they make landfall. The flood water can pick up the toxins from different spills and contaminate the land that it passes over. The toxins are very harmful to the people and animals in the area, as well as the environment around them. The flooding water can also spark many dangerous oil spills. Not sure how important this idea is in the wider context.

Removed the unnecessary adjectives. Toxins, by definition, are harmful (in varying capacity). Oil spills can be dangerous, but discussion/elaboration of those effects would be better suited for oil spill. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Climate change subsection

I'm proposing the following text to completely replace the climate change subsection. The subsection was now ordered by study, which is bad practice as we would love to rely mostly on review papers and order by the aspects of tropical cyclones that change. Also, we should aim to write about facts and therefore use Wikivoice instead of quoting individual researchers. The section below is a summary of the appropriate section in tropical cyclones and climate change. I know my prose isn't always great, so I'm putting it here first for people to comment. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Climate change can affect tropical cyclones in a variety of ways: an intensification of rainfall and wind speed, a decrease in overall frequency, an increase in frequency of very intense storms and a poleward extension of where the cyclones reach maximum intensity are among the possible consequences of human-induced climate change.[1]

Tropical cyclones use warm, moist air as their fuel. As climate change is warming ocean temperatures, there is potentially more of this fuel available.[2] Between 1979 and 2017, there was a global increase in the proportion of tropical cyclones of Category 3 and higher on the Saffir–Simpson scale. The trend was most clear in the North Atlantic and in the Southern Indian Ocean. In the North Pacific, tropical cyclones have been moving poleward into colder waters and there was no increase in intensity over this period.[3] With 2°C warming, a greater percentage (+13%) of tropical cyclones are expected to reach Category 4 and 5 strength.[1] A 2019 study indicates that climate change has been driving the observed trend of rapid intensification of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin. Rapidly intensifying cyclones are hard to forecast and therefore pose additional risk to coastal communities.[4]

There is currently no consensus on how climate change will affect the overall frequency of tropical cyclones.[1] A majority of climate models show a decreased frequency in future projections.[5] For instance, a 2020 paper comparing nine high-resolution climate models found robust decreases in frequency in the Southern Indian Ocean and the Southern Hemisphere more generally, while finding mixed signals for Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclones.[6] Observations have shown little change in the overall frequency of tropical cyclones worldwide.[7]

There has been a poleward expansion of the latitude at which the maximum intensity of tropical cyclones occurs, which may be associated with climate change.[8] In the North Pacific, there may also be an eastward expansion.[9] Between 1949 and 2016, there was a slowdown in tropical cyclone translation speeds. It is unclear still to what extent this can be attributed to climate change: climate models do not all show this feature.[10]

Warmer air can hold more water vapor: the theoretical maximum water vapor content is given by the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, which yields ≈7% increase in water vapor in the atmosphere per 1 °C warming.[11][12] All models that were assessed in a 2019 review paper show a future increase of rainfall rates.[1] Additional sea level rise will increase storm surge levels.[9][13] It is plausible that extreme wind waves see an increase as a consequence of changes in tropical cyclones, further exacerbating storm surge dangers to coastal communities.[5] A 2017 study looked at compounding effects from floods, storm surge, and terrestrial flooding (rivers), and projects an increase due to global warming.[13]

Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

To be completely honest @Femkemilene: I am not sure what to think of your proposed addition - I agree that the section should use wiki voice and that the section needs a rewrite, but I'm not convinced that you have found the right bits to highlight. For example, there is nothing on vertical windshear in your proposed additions, which is forecast to increase if im not mistaken. Let's try developing Tropical cyclones and climate change a bit more, before focusing on the section in this article.Jason Rees (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Jason Rees, so you would like more details about the mechanisms, and possibly less about the overall conclusions. I'll read a bit more and will develop the sub- article a bit more. Any other feedback? Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Femkemilene: My feeling is that the section will write itself, once we have gotten tropical cyclones and climate change up to scratch. With regards to the TC and CC article, we have to remember that people are dumb and will wanna know the basics first before we move on to the more meatier stuff. This is why I am adding a background section in as the very first paragraph outside of the lead.Jason Rees (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the proposed changes here are good, as it fixes the problem in the current article of listing study after study. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I've worked a bit further on our sub- article, but the vertical windshear doesn't appear superfrequently in the climate change literature on tropical cyclones. I've added some information about a weakening windshear in East Asia. The research showing increased vertical windshear in the Atlantic stems from 2007, but is still cited as of 2018.. I think these conflicting findings are difficult to integrate in an article like this. As such, I'm now going to post the above proposal, and further improvements can be done in-article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Climate change sub-article

So great to see all this work being done on this article, thanks Femke Nijsse and Jason Rees! I am just wondering about the "climate change" section. When I see a note saying "main:tropical cyclones and climate change" then I straight away wonder: how much information do we need here if we have a sub-article for it anyway? Surely just a brief summary? Potentially just an excerpt from the other article (although excerpts seem to be frowned upon for featured articles). And also in the other direction: is the information that is now included in the "climate change" section equally to be found in the article tropical cyclones and climate change or is it now better here than what is in the sub-article? EMsmile (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I wrote the section after I worked and the sub-article with the same sources. Having a sub-article is irrelevant to the question of what is due within a certain article. The articles should be self consistent and whether text should be included depends on the proportion of literature dedicated to that topic and the overview literature.
I've removed one primary source which was newly added. There is a tiny bit extra I could cut.
The paragraphs above climate change are severely outdated and I suspect they should be condensed. Jason Rees, shall I write the bit about paleo and climate variability? It seems your to do list is quite long. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@EMsmile: Thanks for the comments - I would argue that the CC should be a summary of the current thinking around CC. Similar to how the section on tropical cyclone naming doesn't go into the whole history of tropical cyclone naming. @Femkemilene: You have already gone ahead and started reordering the section but I was going to say how can I refuse an offer of help from someone who has a PHD in CC.Jason Rees (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes but eventually, the content that appears under the CC section should be the same as what uses can find at tropical cyclones and climate change, right? So if Femke updates the CC section in this article, then this should be copied to the tropical cyclones and climate change, or vice versa. I noted that the article tropical cyclones and climate change so far has a rather incomplete lead section, for example. But perhaps the plan is to tackle that article after this one. EMsmile (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
And I don't understand this statement: "Having a sub-article is irrelevant to the question of what is due within a certain article.". Why do you see it as irrelevant? For me each Wikipedia article is embedded in the entire web of articles in Wikipedia. So if there is a (good) sub-article, then why would I re-write and double up on content? Isn't that inefficient and not good use of our time? Maybe this is a philosophical question but I have seen it so many times in Wikipedia that the content of the main article either duplicates a lot from the sub-article; or that the sub-article is actually much weaker and doesn't even contain the content from the main article, even though it should. As a result, some "main articles" have become overly long (86 kB of readable prose). See for example the one on marine life. Someone must have decided that it should "stand on its own", so e.g. in the section on "marine viruses" it has 8 paragraphs and several images even though it links to {{main:marine viruses}}". Am I missing something? I am just bringing this up because we had a similar discussion at sustainable energy and as we're doing collaborative editing, it would be good to understand how the other person approaches this so that we don't edit "in different directions". EMsmile (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I base that statement on the WP:featured article criteria, which talk about comprehensiveness and summary style. The balance of these two statements means that the text in the article should reflect the proportion of attention of the literature. There is always some editorial freedom to make sure overlap between horizontal articles isn't too big, but there is no need to compromise the main article just because sub- articles exist. That said, 86 kB is definitely too long, and the article you link should be summarised over the entire board. The rationale for condensing that article is summary style (and WP:SANDWICHING for the images). FemkeMilene (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@EMsmile and Femkemilene: I think that there are a lot of things that need to be worked out with regards to this article as it currently stands at around 141000 bytes. Personally, I take inspiration from the tropical cyclone season articles which seem to do a good job of summarising what happened during a storm without going to far in depth. As a result, I hope to replicate that here with the plan below containing several of my personal thoughts on how this article should be developed.Jason Rees (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I am just wondering what the current planning is for the sub-article tropical cyclones and climate change? Does anyone have it on their to-do list, or will it be done the other way around: first work on the content in the section on climate change and later sync it with tropical cyclones and climate change? Just wondering. EMsmile (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I've worked extensively on tropical cyclones and climate change in preparation for the above text, which is a summary extracting the HQRS. The page has low page views, so I'm not going to work any further on it. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Intensity subsection

We need to figure out exactly how we are going to structure the intensity subsection and what kind of a subarticle we need to write for it (if we need one). NoahTalk 15:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: Would you have any ideas? NoahTalk 15:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not the tropical cyclone expert, so I find this quite difficult. My first thought is that rapid intensification should be part of intensity.. I'm quite surprised I cannot find recent books on Google books that cover the topic in its entirety, which may be because of not using the right search terms. I always use books when I don't know how to structure an article: find the index of a couple of high-quality books and mix-and-match. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Femkemilene: I will create and add a plan here tonight for what this section should cover so I can begin working on it this week. NoahTalk 18:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Plan

  • TCs intensity determined by winds and pressure
  • Observed common intensities and extremes
  • Other metrics for intensity (HSI/ACE/IKE)
Factors (their roles in intensification and weakening)
  • SSTs
  • Wind Shear
  • Role size plays
  • Outflow
  • MJO
  • Moisture
  • OHC + Tropical Cyclone Heat Potential
  • Structure changes + interaction with other systems
  • Landmasses, brown ocean effect, orographic lift, jet enhancement
Formation
  • WILL ADD IDEAS SOON!
General intensification/RI
  • General intensification information
  • Rapid intensification/rapid deepening
Weakening and Dissipation
  • Current section, but more condensed
Methods
  • Brief explanation on Dvorak's role for intensity + brief on recon, direct observ, and height reduction conversion
  • Wind-pressure relationship
  • Other commonly-used tools for measuring intensity (ADT, SATCON, ASCAT, SMAP)
Scales
  • Scales moved under this section somewhere?


@Femkemilene and Hurricanehink: I already spok×e to Jason off wiki about this one. What do you guys think about this plan? Bolded items are subsections of intensity. NoahTalk 01:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm slightly intimidated by the abbreviations. Just make sure it stays accessible and I'm happy :). FemkeMilene (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The abbreviations are just for the list of points here. They will be written out in full in the text. I have never really been fond of using just abbreviations in text other than for agency names. I will need to move intensity under classification per Jason Rees's plan. Would we need any more subsections under intensity or is the proposed organization fine? NoahTalk 20:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmm.. The second paragraph is quite long. Can it be further reduced to keep paragraph size in check (halved??)? I think the factors is the most interesting subsection here and deserves most of the space. If that doesn't make sense, ignore me as I'm not the expert. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Femkemilene: I still have to add the bit on wind height reduction to the first paragraph. I can’t reduce the coverage of the methods without cutting important details. I actually left out a bunch of lesser known satellite tools. As for the factors, it will likely get at least the same if not more coverage than the methods. NoahTalk 22:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional comment: I added that bit in for the first paragraph. That second paragraph is okay for size. I have actually seen paragraphs larger than that be acceptable at FAC. The methods section is now completely finished and I have addressed all of the points I intended to. I will add in the wind-pressure relationship today; I got a couple academic journals on it. I likely won't add anything else in until after my finals on Monday, especially considering I have to work today and tomorrow. Anyways, factors will be the next intensity subtopic to be addressed and boy oh boy there is a lot to address. EDIT 21:34 Actually, the WPR also needs to be in the methods section as well, which should finish it. NoahTalk 12:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I am working on the factors now and added in a bit about OHC/TCHP tonight since my exams are done. NoahTalk 01:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Continuing

13. The popular culture section seems to have examples only from a single country (US). Surely, tropical cyclones must be portrayed in pop. cult. in Japan, Central America / Mexico. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d Knutson, Thomas; Camargo, Suzana J.; Chan, Johnny C. L.; Emanuel, Kerry; Ho, Chang-Hoi; Kossin, James; Mohapatra, Mrutyunjay; Satoh, Masaki; Sugi, Masato; Walsh, Kevin; Wu, Liguang (2019-08-06). "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part II. Projected Response to Anthropogenic Warming". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society: BAMS–D–18-0194.1. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0194.1. ISSN 0003-0007.
  2. ^ "Major tropical cyclones have become '15% more likely' over past 40 years". Carbon Brief. 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-08-31.
  3. ^ Kossin, James P.; Knapp, Kenneth R.; Olander, Timothy L.; Velden, Christopher S. (2020-05-18). "Global increase in major tropical cyclone exceedance probability over the past four decades" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (22): 11975–11980. doi:10.1073/pnas.1920849117. ISSN 0027-8424.
  4. ^ Collins, M.; Sutherland, M.; Bouwer, L.; Cheong, S.-M.; et al. (2019). "Chapter 6: Extremes, Abrupt Changes and Managing Risks" (PDF). IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. p. 602.
  5. ^ a b Walsh, K. J. E.; Camargo, S. J.; Knutson, T. R.; Kossin, J.; Lee, T. -C.; Murakami, H.; Patricola, C. (2019-12-01). "Tropical cyclones and climate change". Tropical Cyclone Research and Review. 8 (4): 240–250. doi:10.1016/j.tcrr.2020.01.004. ISSN 2225-6032.
  6. ^ Roberts, Malcolm John; Camp, Joanne; Seddon, Jon; Vidale, Pier Luigi; Hodges, Kevin; Vannière, Benoît; Mecking, Jenny; Haarsma, Rein; Bellucci, Alessio; Scoccimarro, Enrico; Caron, Louis-Philippe (2020). "Projected Future Changes in Tropical Cyclones Using the CMIP6 HighResMIP Multimodel Ensemble". Geophysical Research Letters. 47 (14): e2020GL088662. doi:10.1029/2020GL088662. ISSN 1944-8007.
  7. ^ "Hurricanes and Climate Change". Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved 2019-09-29.
  8. ^ James P. Kossin; Kerry A. Emanuel; Gabriel A. Vecchi (2014). "The poleward migration of the location of tropical cyclone maximum intensity". Nature. 509 (7500): 349–352. Bibcode:2014Natur.509..349K. doi:10.1038/nature13278. hdl:1721.1/91576. PMID 24828193.
  9. ^ a b Collins, M.; Sutherland, M.; Bouwer, L.; Cheong, S.-M.; et al. (2019). "Chapter 6: Extremes, Abrupt Changes and Managing Risks" (PDF). IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. p. 603.
  10. ^ Walsh, K. J. E.; Camargo, S. J.; Knutson, T. R.; Kossin, J.; Lee, T. -C.; Murakami, H.; Patricola, C. (2019-12-01). "Tropical cyclones and climate change". Tropical Cyclone Research and Review. 8 (4): 240–250. doi:10.1016/j.tcrr.2020.01.004. ISSN 2225-6032.
  11. ^ Thomas R. Knutson; Joseph J. Sirutis; Ming Zhao (2015). "Global Projections of Intense Tropical Cyclone Activity for the Late Twenty-First Century from Dynamical Downscaling of CMIP5/RCP4.5 Scenarios". Journal of Climate. 28 (18): 7203–7224. Bibcode:2015JCli...28.7203K. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0129.1.
  12. ^ Knutson; et al. (2013). "Dynamical Downscaling Projections of Late 21st Century Atlantic Hurricane Activity: CMIP3 and CMIP5 Model-based Scenarios". Journal of Climate. 26 (17): 6591–6617. Bibcode:2013JCli...26.6591K. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00539.1.
  13. ^ a b "Hurricane Harvey shows how we underestimate flooding risks in coastal cities, scientists say". The Washington Post. August 29, 2017.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

Change the first sentence of the third paragraph of the "Climatology and records" section from "Each year on average, around 80 to 90 named tropical cyclones form around the world, of which over half of which develop hurricane-force winds of 65 kn (120 km/h; 75 mph) or more." to "Each year on average, around 80 to 90 named tropical cyclones form around the world, over half of which develop hurricane-force winds of 65 kn (120 km/h; 75 mph) or more." 192.153.142.154 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021

Can someone edit the sections Environmental steering and Beta drift to be subheadings of Movement?

I think it would need to be a fourth-level heading.

76.81.148.72 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 17:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021

TYPO/MISSPELLING under section heading "Climatology and records": change "poxy data" to "proxy data" Hmcartagena (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Size/altitude - troposphere? article organization issue

Some time ago I noted that this article never stated the altitude of hurricanes. I added this/diff contribution, but it has been removed, alas. The article mentions the troposphere several places, but never defines the role of the troposphere in capping hurricanes. The general missing element of the role of the troposphere and the basic facts for the height of hurricanes remain missing in the article; involving the troposphere in sentences, without its introduction, is confusing, IMO. (Apparently hurricane hunters can't fly above hurricanes, for example.)

While I was there, I noted the article organization is odd. There is a section "Structure" that has mostly subsections pertaining to the dynamics and behavior of hurricanes. I suggest limiting "Structure" to have "Eye and center" and "Size" (with an addition for altitude/troposphere), and introducing a new section like "Dynamics" that would include interactions, intensification, dissipation. Bdushaw (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: If you read above there is a proposed layout that would relieve your concerns, however, I can not wrtie about the whole of tropical cyclones on my own. As for the removed edit, it appears that it didn't fit in to the information that was already present and was thus removed.Jason Rees (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Consensus against merging. Discussion about possible renaming can continue in #Alternate proposal. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to merge Typhoon into Tropical cyclone. A typhoon is a type of tropical cyclone just like a hurricane. I think that the content of the article can easily be explained in the Tropical cyclone article. Interstellarity (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A typhoon is specifically about tropical cyclones in the western Pacific. We have similar articles for Atlantic hurricane, South-West Indian Ocean tropical cyclone, etc. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: I thought about this a little bit and my first thought was renaming Typhoon to Pacific typhoon. However, because typhoons don't form anywhere else in the world besides the western Pacific, it's probably redundant to add it to the article title per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. After that, I thought that keeping the status quo is fine. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Do you have a different opinion than me with regards to retitling Typhoon or merging? Interstellarity (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Same thoughts that "Pacific typhoon" would be redundant. I do feel that every basin should have a top-level article, which links to every season article, deals with basic climatology, and records. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Could you describe in detail what the titles would be for a top-level article and what would it include? I find your explanation to be basic. I was hoping you could dive into detail about what you are thinking in your head about how to structure every basin article. Interstellarity (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The titles are all located in Template:Cyclones, and I think they all work fine. I think each one could include the list of seasons, a general sense of climatology, and how the storms in the basin are monitored/tracked. Let's take North Indian Ocean tropical cyclone. It mentions where the storms form, the history of research into storms in the basin, climatology, how climate change affects the basin, the seasons, and records. I think it's a good descriptor for storms in the basin. There is some overlap with the general TC article, for sure, but the NIOTC article is specifically about storms in that part of the world. On the other hand, I think that the Atlantic hurricane, Atlantic hurricane season, Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project, and List of Atlantic hurricane records has a lot of overlap, and perhaps all should be merged into a single article, rather than splitting the information across four articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose the proposed merger – This article is about the typhoons in the West Pacific, not tropical cyclones in general. Given the amount of information and literature out there on typhoons, this article is appropriate for providing readers with more details on these storms. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose the proposed merger. In addition to the alternate proposal that I had given, a merger is unwarranted because each basin has their regional histories, including storm records and climatology. Furthermore, they each have their regional authorities pertaining to storm monitoring, forecasts, and naming. All that cannot be condensed into a single tropical cyclone article, which may end up becoming too long. In turn, the article would have to be split anyways. Furthermore, condensed summaries of the basins already have its own article: Tropical cyclone basins. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternate proposal

As noted by HurricaneHink, cyclones in other basins are noted in Atlantic hurricane, South-West Indian Ocean tropical cyclone, etc. All of these articles should be renamed according to their basins. For example, Atlantic hurricane becomes North Atlantic tropical cyclone basin, Pacific typhoon becomes North West Pacific cyclone basin, and so on. That way, each of these articles focus on the basins more so than the storms that occur within each region. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 10:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment. This would forever end the debate about "Atlantic hurricanes" being about all North Atlantic tropical cyclones. However, titles are also supposed to be as concise as possible. So I'm not sure how I feel about moving the titles. It certainly makes sense, as all of the articles would essentially be sub-articles of tropical cyclone basins, but they're also the parent article for all of the season articles, and I don't want "2021 North Atlantic tropical cyclone season". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd oppose this on grounds of WP:PRECISION. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding precision, the basins are very well defined. However, WP:COMMONNAME would override my proposal. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

{{Tropical cyclone classification}}

FYI Template:Tropical cyclone classification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for discussion at TfD. See the consensus-seeking discussion -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Redirects at the top

Is there a way to combine the technical ref for Hurricane #1 and the generic hurricane redirect? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_cyclone/Archive_5&oldid=1147942052"