Talk:Climate of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a current selected article candidate on Indian portal. A selected article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work related to India, and is therefore expected to meet selected article criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click on [show] for further details
WikiProject India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale by the India project.
This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.

Contents 1 Seasons? 2 Scale of Map Correct? 3 Use Correct Data and Correct Map 4 New map

[edit] Seasons?

According to Greg O'Hare, "The Indian Monsoon, Part Two: TheRains," in Geography, 82:4 (1997), p335: India has three seasons, Cold (Oct-Dec), Hot (Jan-May), Rains(June-Sept). -- TheMightyQuill 09:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scale of Map Correct?

Is the scale on that map correct? It shows almost all of India getting less than 1000mm of rain per year. And yet, every source I've ever seen has shown most of the country getting much more: Chennai, 1300 mm, for example, or Mumbai, 1800mm. Based on the map, if I'm reading it correctly, Tamil Nadu is a desert, and I'm pretty sure that's not true. 68.83.140.156 03:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Essex9999

I didn't see your post here first, but I agree. The map shows the wettest parts of central India receiving between 300 and 500 mm/year (11.8 and 19.7 inches/year). This is less than most of the semi-arid Great Plains. It must mean cm/year. Right? I'll keep the disputed-section tag on for awhile, then I'll delete the map if there's no comment (as the original comment was made in early June, 2006). Thanks. Ufwuct 03:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The map is right but in wrong units, it should be in cm/year. Central part of India is really semi-arid. There are two mostly wet areas - mountains in the southwest and mountains in the north east both associated with the path of two monsoon waves. There is also a Thar desert in the northwest of India by the Pakistanian frontier. Thats what I have been told in my Regional Climatology lessons at meteorology and climatology department of Charles University in Prague. --Vladimír Fuka 09:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Im aware of the error in the units. Even the data is a bit outdated. Im actually scouting for better cources and plan to make an svg map soon. It will have to wait till i get some time on my hands. Thanks for notifying me anyways -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 17:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

but in wrong units, it should be in cm/year — Lejzy

That was my point. The units are off, so the map is not correct. The map should be made clear for those not familiar with the climate of India (that is, without having to interpret the map). Although you and I seem to know how to interpret the map, others might not. Thanks. Ufwuct 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No I beg to differ, the entire map is wrong, not just the units. Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, the precipitation depends on relief features and not on political boundaries. It is irrelevant to show the rainfall according to state boundaries. In some states, there are arid zones and tropical zones co-existing. Further, it could be more informative to show the rainfall pattern in the neighbouring countries as well while showing the international boundary of India with the appropriate convention for disputed boundary. This map has been deleted as it is misleading and depicts false information. Alternative arrangements are required! Don't reinstitate the map as that is eqvivalent to writing false information. The map cannot be used even as a stop-gap measure. Please visit www.imd.gov.in for more information on the Indian Climate. Ketankhare 04:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have data that shows it is incorrect (besides the units)? It may be very misleading, as I think it is, to have that map here, as it obscures very important local variations in rainfall. However, it might not be wrong (besides the units). Ufwuct 06:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us assume that only the units are wrong (i.e. the units are supposed to be cm/yr), observe that then most of India would be receiving much more than 100 cm of rainfall a year. Maharashtra (my state of residence), would be receiving between 300 and 500 cms of rainfall a year. Now I am sure that the maximum rainfall a place receives in Maharashtra is around 350 cm. Most of the state has to contend with less than 100 cm of rainfall. Surely, the average cannot be 300-500 cms. Tamil Nadu in the South is one of the most truely tropical states in India which grows among other things Sugarcane and Rice, it APPARENTLY receives the same rainfall as Rajasthan in the North-west home to the Great Indian Desert. I think the author of the map had forgotten to include the North-west monsoon rainfall for Tamil Nadu. Clearly, there is something far more than the units which is wrong. I will try to give a reliable reference for you regarding the rainfall details. But I would be more curious to know the reference used by the author of the old map. Trust me on this, the map cannot be repaired, a new one is required, I would be happy to help. I would also like to express concern over the international boundaries depicted. For a neutral POV, I think it is important to depict the disputed regions of India as well. Also, below there is a link to IMD, please try to co-relate some of the information, you will realize that the information on the map is wrong

There are several issues here

1. Factual Correctness 2. Neutral POV regarding disputes on the International boundary with Pakistan and China 3. Need to show the precipitation for South-west and North-east monsoon seasons separately. 4. People working at the WikiProject need to please note that this article needs urgent improvement, we can do a far better job.Ketankhare 07:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use Correct Data and Correct Map

From here please http://www.imd.gov.in/section/climate/annual-rainfall.htm

and here http://www.imd.gov.in/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.254.134 (talk • contribs) 18:24, September 2, 2006.

User:69.248.254.134: Although the map you have found is not as pretty, I think it is more informative. It shows, for instance, the high rainfall of the Western Ghats, which is not very evident in the existing image. My preference is for an isohyet graph if it is available rather than one that shows precipitation averaged over the whole province. Thanks for finding the image. Ufwuct 00:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the above image is acceptable under fair use? I looked through the website and did not see any information either way? Ufwuct 15:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Complicated issue...here is a text from the Site Discliamer below www.imdmumbai.gov.in "Access to the works and information contained in this site is provided as a public service by the Regional Meteorological Centre, Mumbai (RMC), with the understanding that the RMC makes no warranties, either express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability, currency or suitability of the information. Nor does the RMC warrant that use of the works is free of any claims of copyright infringement. Links to non-IMD sites do not imply any official endorsement of or responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data, or products presented at those locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. Links to non-IMD servers are provided solely as a pointer to information on topics that may be useful to the public." Considering that the isohyet map in question is rather untidy, I would recommend that Wikipedia Maps makes it again.

[edit] New map

jeez people, you guys could have just been a it more patient. anyway found some time on my hands, so please pick one to your liking ; ) . If you find any errors please notify -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 14:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I didn't hear anyone demand a map now. Sorry if you felt that we were hounding you. That was not my intention. At any rate, thank you very much for the maps that you have created. They appear accurate and also pleasing to the eye. My preference would be for the labeled version. I don't think it covers up any isohyetal lines and it also adds information. Thanks again for the work that you've put into this. Ufwuct 15:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, no i wasnt pressured, it just so happened that i had some free time yesterday so thought ill tick one more map of my to do list. But when i opened this talk page today, i was surprised at the continued discussion of my previous map which i had admitted, was inaccurate, thats all -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 16:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

B E A U Tiful. Excellent work. I think the labelled map provides information to those unfamiliar with the location of India's cities. As far as I remember from my geography lessons, this map is absolutely accurate. I cannot express my happiness...I want to award you something, but I think I am too new to award anything to anyone in Wikipedia. Ketankhare 59.182.33.126 19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)