Talk:Extratropical cyclone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Extratropical cyclone is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 1, 2006.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Non-tropical storms, a project containing articles related to worldwide Non-tropical storm events. If you would like to participate and help, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance within WikiProject Non-tropical storms.

Contents

[edit] Mid-latitude cyclones are the same as extratropical cyclones

I'm not entirely clear on the distinction between extratropical and mid-latitude cyclones. I made this article by splitting off over-length info in cyclone about extratropical storms; previously this article was just a redirect to mid-latitude cyclone (which according to the cyclone article seems incorrect). Jdorje 06:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think extratropical and mid-latitude cyclones should be the same.

Here is a quote from a question in NOAA Hurricane FAQ.

An extra-tropical cyclone is a storm system that primarily gets its energy from the horizontal temperature contrasts that exist in the atmosphere. Extra-tropical cyclones (also known as mid-latitude or baroclinic storms) are low pressure systems with associated cold fronts, warm fronts, and occluded fronts. Momoko 07:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a meteorologist and I can tell you that they are one and the same. I've recommended this page be merged. Famartin 03:40 02 May 2006 (UTC)


Extratropical stroms and mid-lat storms are the same thing. The word simply comes from "Extra: outside, Tropical: Tropics" thus extratropical is any storm that forms outside of the tropics. There are a few errors in this article. This article need to be changed/updated.
Agreed. This article should be merged or deleted. Thegreatdr 18:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Reccommend it is done quickly as some of this information is rather inaccurate, such as the whole paragraph on them being more common in the United Stated than in Europe. WindRunner 14:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dont agree

Extra-tropical storms need to be defined quite apart from mid-latitude cyclones. The reasoning is that 1, Extra-tropical appears to be the more common term that a non-meteorologist is likely to encounter. In fact, extra-tropical is a term used by the forecasters! 2, Those wondering just what the NHC meant by "extra-tropical transition" won't have a clue as to where to find the info 3, people tend to consider Extra-tropical lows as lows which were once tropical. In the summer months, at the very least, Most significant atlantic lows are indeed from ex-hurricanes.

Removing this page would leave a gap in the information it gives. --Crimsone 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Reorganization - Mid-Latitude Cyclone & Extratropical cyclone

Extratropical cyclones can't be defined separately from Mid-Latitude cyclones, since both are cold core and frontal. I propose renaming this page as Mid-Latitude Cyclones, leaving in a reference at the top explaining they are the same thing, and renaming the Mid-Latitude Cyclone page as cyclogenesis, since that's all the other article currently deals with. I'm providing some time for feedback before making these changes. Either way, this page still needs work, like references for a start, if it's ever going to be B class. Thegreatdr 11:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that (it's fairly well reasoned), provided that a page is created in the tropical cyclone catagory such as Extratropical transition. Even then though, WP:NAME may come into play with regards to "extratropical cyclone" vs "mid-lattitude cyclone" vs "cyclogenesis"...
Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.
Which would probably name the articles according to how the general public are likely to look for them. --Crimsone 11:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a good point. Only meteorologists appear to use the term Mid-Latitude Cyclone, although it is quite easily understood since these cyclones form in the middle latitudes of earth (30s, 40s, 50s in latitude). I'd be willing to keep this article name the same, for the time being. Keep in mind that the only time the term extratropical cyclone is ever used is in reference to formerly tropical cyclones in the United States, so there's a potential POV problem. It appears best for extratropical transition to be discussed in the tropical cyclone article. Thegreatdr 11:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tried to organize the page a bit better. You can tell I simply pasted sections of what was once part of Mid-Latitude Cyclone (now cyclogenesis) into this article. It should flow much more smoothly now. Thegreatdr 06:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Article has become far too technical

As per the peer review, previous to today the article was in a pretty good state in terms of readability and understanding. However, Aftaer substantial editing since then, the article has become somewhat tough for even myself to follow (as a person who knows at least a little bit about the weather to start with).

Some of this may be due to the order of the sections, but much of the problem is the use of almost scientific language without sufficient explanation,disconnected sections, disconnected sentence structure with overuse of commas, and the fact that the formation section no longer exists - a fairly rudimentary part of the subject that people will naturally want to know - this can never become a featured article in this state because your average person will be put off from reading it straight away.

For example - the title "cyclogenesis" is immediately offputting to the non technical person, whereas the heading "formation" is immediately seen for what it means by the laymen. Specialist information is without a doubt very important, but things like technical information relating to "cyclogenisis" should be left to the cyclogenisis article, and thus the "formation" section of this article doesn't need to be too technical. --Crimsone 13:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There do need to be technical terms in this article, no doubt. But you're right...there do need to be layman's terms as well. It was a very clumsy article before the reorganization last night which improved it a bit, and your edits today improved it more. I doubt this article will need another major overhaul, the way it stands right now. There are some nitpicky details, such as references for the warm seclusion of the 2005 tropical cyclones (what reference did that come from?), but I think it's in much better shape now than it was this time yesterday. Thegreatdr 16:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope I didn't sound like I was saying to get rid of thew technical terms - all I meant was they needed explanation. :)
To be honest, I suspect we may differe on our views of where the article was at last night, but I suspect that it's because we're both looking at it from differing perspectives (which is a good thing!). As to the overhauls - I do hope we've finished on that count (for now at least! lol), but I think you're right. It's not far away in structure terms now after both of our rather heavy editing work..
The one thing I would like to suggest though is that technichal terms are probably better replaced with "common speak" equivelants where possible, as that's the audience that really needs most catering to (specialists and experts can work it out for theirselves. lol) :) --Crimsone 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cylogenesis

The section mentiones the wrapping around the "southwestern periphery", but isn't this only applicable to the northern hemispere? If so, it's a POV element that needs to be balanced --Crimsone 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be balanced now. Note I had to use the terms equatorward and poleward to account for both the northern and southern hemisphere. Thegreatdr 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, though I had thought that instead of the southwestern periphery in the norht, it would be the north eastern in the southern hemisphere? Just a question of accuracy now rather than POV. :) (Incidentally, I've left a comment in the raw markup for the motion section - it wasn't something I could easily deal with, as "zonal flow" is one of those terms I've never acually read an explanation for. lol) --Crimsone 17:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can find a graphic depicting zonal and meridional flow patterns. Think of the southern hemisphere (SH) as just a mirror image of the northern hemisphere (NH). Systems still move from west to east (in fact, their westerlies are less frequently interrupted due to a lack of continental landmasses). If a feature moves southeast in the NH, it would move northeast in the SH. Thegreatdr 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that :) I look forward to seeing the diagram :) --Crimsone 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I found two images that show the difference in the patterns. Unfortunately, they are in different map projections. Hopefully this doesn't ruin the impact of the images. Thegreatdr 18:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. To be honest, it would actually be better (tidier and more "to the point") to farm the images (with explanation) out to another article. It's not really enough for an article on it's own, but there are a few atmospheric terms that appear to be undefined. I've left a message to that effect on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology. Untill somethings done with respect to that message though, it'll have to be kept here :) --Crimsone 13:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation number 12

I don't know what's wrong with its coding, but it definitely sticks out as different compared to the other references. Thegreatdr 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted :) It was missing the begining of the cite (it comes directly after the ref tag "{{cite web"). I've fixed it up now. --Crimsone 13:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

  • "Extratropical cyclone is a meteorological term referring to low pressure weather systems known as cyclones." - I'm uncertain as to what this means. Are you just saying that this term is identical to cyclone, or a subclass of it? If it's the same as cyclone, why bother with Extratropical?
  • Actually, it seems that point is important, as the rest of it doesn't make very much sense: If I don't know what an Extratropical cyclone is in the least, besides MAYBE a type of cyclone that forms... well, in a wide range of latitudes, it's not very useful to promptly begin talking, using a lot more unexplained jargon, about the two ways they form.

In short, I can't see this article passing until a clear explanation of what an extratropical cyclone is and is not is mentioned in the first paragraph. As it is, it tells a lot about extratropical cyclones, but not what they are. Glossing the other meteorological terms would also help a lot. Adam Cuerden talk 18:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the first paragraph. CrazyC83 19:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Much better, though it still doesn't fully explain how they differ from tropical and polar cyclones, even if it now gives a much stronger idea of what they are. Adam Cuerden talk 19:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That is in the 2nd paragraph. The front-connections also separates them apart, which I will mention. CrazyC83 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with CrazyC83 (above), it might also be worth noting that extratropical cyclones are the most common, or "standard" variety. Really speaking, it's the Polar and Tropical cyclones that should ideally be differentiated from extratropical ones, rather than the other way around. That said, the summary does say how they differ, per the aforementioned above comment. --Crimsone 13:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Made the changes as mentioned. CrazyC83 18:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Added redirect to this article from Extratropical transition. This article has the only description of it (and a pretty good one too!) so it seemed as a sensible thing to do --Crimsone 11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA re-review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): [[Image:|15px]]
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]

As fixed, it seems to cover all aspects of GA, except possibly a rather large amount of Jargon in the "Cyclogenesis" section, and "baroclinic" and "barotropic" going undefined. These are relatively minor, however, and, in the presumption they'll be fixed soon, I think this deserves a GA. Adam Cuerden talk 18:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. I tried to reword it slightly to be less "jargony." Thegreatdr 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Baroclinic and barotropic are not really defined in detail anywhere. They don't really need much of a definition, but the baroclinic and barotropic cyclones article could be expanded to include this.

In spite of your efforts, the greatdr, I feel the cyclogenesis section is actually now worse in jargon terms - I just read it to my housemate and she can't even follow the new version, let alone understand it. By contrast, she was able to get a basic understanding from the earlier version of that section. To tell the truth, I see it in much the same light (having only a rudimentary understanding compared to yourself).

"which causes upper level divergence and a corresponding convergence in the low level wind field, which causes surface low pressure to form and/or deepen" may offer a further explanation to meteorologists who already understand the jargon, but to anybody that doesn't it's actually more confusing and offputting. There's also no need as far as I can tellto repeat the description of the air infront of the warm front as cool. To say that something is due to the greater density of cool air carries a natural inferrance that cool air is denser than warm air. --Crimsone 00:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In the former version, baroclinic and barotropic were described fairly well, I thought, but they were located near the bottom of the article. To my knowledge, I did not remove that section. If you did not, someone else might have removed it. I added those definitions back into the introduction section yesterday. The formation section has been reworded again. The version from about 10 days ago (before the reorganization) described the formation of overrunning precipitation (which actually slightly enhances high pressure behind a warm front due to the low-level rain-cooled air), not the formation of a low pressure area. If you'd like, we can add a figure showing the "in-up-out" motion of air in an extratropical cyclone, if it would make it clearer. Thegreatdr 00:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It was myself that removed it. I removed it to it's own article. :) --Crimsone 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Almost ready for FAC

This is an excellent article, probably the best in the project (aside from climate articles). Everything currently in the article is very well explained, however, there are some things I believe are omitted or underrepresented that should be included more.

  1. Severe weather events that are produced by extratropical cyclones. They are responsible for tornado outbreaks, derechos, and other severe weather, yet this is not mentioned anywhere.
  2. Blizzards/winter storms are almost solely produced by extratropical cyclones, yet snow is only briefly mentioned here.
  3. Possibly a mention of famous bombs, such as the 1993 North American storm complex.

For the most part, all of these could be added to the Effects section. Again excellent work everyone, on getting this article this far. -Runningonbrains 22:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If such elements were added to the article, would it be fair to mention also that events of such a severity are comparatively infrequent or even rare. The reason I say this is because Extratropical cyclones really are an everyday occurance, which is something the article should protray without sensationalism. Most of them come and go without significant incident - just today my hair got a little damp as a result of frontal drizzle from the atlantic for the third time in as many weeks (not being funny with that, btw. I'm just trying to illustrate the point). --Crimsone 23:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point...there is no mention of the frequency of these storms at all....that should definately be in there. -Runningonbrains 11:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I found a couple sources, but even adding these two up, you really don't get an annual frequency worldwide. Thegreatdr 13:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if anybody has actually bothered to count them with any certainty? I mean, I shouldn't imagine that it's something meteorologists would have much need of other than the coommon knowlege that they happen all the time. As a rough estimate, I would imagine that anywhere between 40 and 70 of them would be the norm for a given year in the northern hemisphere (haven't checked your recent numbers yet but will do so momentarily for interests sake). Crimsone 13:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jargon

Earlier today I removed the simple tag added by a human assisted robot on the 17th. While I don't think the tag is really justified (there'll always be some jargon in a scientific subject), I understand the reasoning as not all terms are yet defined on wiki (eg, divergence and convergence, etc). I've made substantive edits to simplify the motion section and add a little further info, and will attept to simplify cyclogenesis as best as I can presently. Crimsone 13:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that mathematical divergence is in wikipedia, and although it is very technical and mathematically intensive, it does explain the point of convergence and divergence, even if the math is beyond the lay person. Do you think we need to have a different article for convergence and divergence relating to meteorology? I worry that they would be extremely short, and not make it past stub class. Thegreatdr 15:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
There is the article Earth's atmosphere (Meteorology) that that information may fit into. It would take some wrangling to make it work perhaps, but It could probably be done. When I started writing it, it was going to be a sort of catch all for different meteorological terms just so that the undefined terms were linkable on wikipedia. Of course, the aim is still to have an actual article that's unified in theme. (it started with upper, mid level and low level, I added zonal and meridonial flow, but at that point I decided that I couldn't work any further on it before moving it to the mainspace). It's not a complete article, but I guess it would be a place to put such things that would be better than a small stub for each term.
I do think that the terms need a meteorology specific definition for layman users, but I agree that an article for each seems a little much. What do you think of this suggestion? You'd probably know better than myself on that account. Crimsone 15:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added a small severe weather section

Per previous comments, a section on severe weather was added. Thegreatdr 13:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automated peer review suggestions

Per the articles peer review, an automated bot has issued some suggestions, as given by User:Ruhrfisch which also neend to be looked at here. Nothing too serious by the looks of things though. :) Crimsone 15:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought we made those changes already. Thegreatdr 18:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of them, yes. There were still one or two to be looked at when I posted about it though. I shall take a closer look soon. Crimsone 22:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Per the automated review...

  • Lead - done
  • WP:MOSDATE - done
  • WP:MOSNUM - done
  • WP:MOS - unchecked
  • Infobox - none appropriate
  • WP:BTW - done
  • WP:MOS#Headings - Done (I think!)
  • WP:FOOTNOTE - Done (I think!)
  • copyediting - Done.

That's pretty much my take on the current state of it from what I've just done. Not looking bad at all :) --Crimsone 04:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing that I've just noticed from the recent copyedits - the term "forcing" has been changed to "forces" throughout the article. While I realise that there is still no definition of "forcing" for meteorology on wiki at the moment, I thought that it was a term with specific meaning? Crimsone 05:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Forcing is just a "fancy" term meteorologists use when trying to communicate that upper level systems create certain conditions at the surface. It's a mind set that systems aloft control systems at the surface, and force changes at that level. Tropical cyclones, even coastal fronts, don't completely fit this idea, as they can cause changes aloft due to changes at the surface. Thegreatdr 16:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks:) Could it be said then that the term "forcing" simply means that the events of one portion of the atmosphere create changes in another part of the atmosphere? Crimsone 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you're safe with that. I guess teleconnections could be termed forcing as well, by that reasoning. Thegreatdr 16:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Eep, that was me. I wasn't sure of the term... so, perhaps "interaction" could also work too? Titoxd(?!?) 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It could, but unfortunately it doesn't really infer any particular type of interaction, or thekind of mechanistic effect that "forcing" tends to infer. I have however added a rough definition of forcing to another article and wikilinked it. Where it was possible for me to do so, I've specified the means of forcing (where the term was required) in the article here. Crimsone 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New automated review

I've just re-run the automated review tool and it provided the following. Anyone who can spot the reasons for these, feel free to fix them if appropriate...

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[2]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[3]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [4]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Only MOSNUM and CONTEXT/BTW left on the list above now. Crimsone 03:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

I've just run through the article and given it another full copyedit. In the total numbers in the formation section, the provisional note I left for accuracy needs replacing with an actual number. However, I did notice that a study mentioned a number of 39 (average) per SH analysis, per annum. Each SH analysis was over a timespan of 6 hrs from what I could glean in the article, but how this calculates out to an anual number is beyond me (obviously, some cylones in one SH analysis would feature in many SH analyses before and after it. It would appear to yeild roughly the same as the NH study though.

On copyedit grounds, I'm now happy for FAC if anybody else is. Crimsone 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost ready to add my support vote (see the discussion page), but I have one issue. I don't believe that the UK has the most tornadoes per area of any region, only of any one country. I do believe there are areas in the US (Central Oklahoma, East Colorado, Florida) which have a greater distribution of tornadoes per area. -Runningonbrains 09:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I went through and calculated, and it appears I am right. I am going to remove the statement as irrelevant. -Runningonbrains 10:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Per my recent talk page message after asking you about it, I agree with the removal of the statement per your explanation. Crimsone 17:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added trowal and comma head into structure section

How this evaded addition into the article until the present time is unknown, but they are now included into the article. Hopefully I wrote it understandably, thowing the jargon into parenthesis and highlighting the text that created the word known as trowal. Thegreatdr 16:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all, and quite well written :) Crimsone 15:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps a bit premature, but congrats!

The article has been in FAC for about a week now, and has not attracted any opoositional votes. At this point, it looks likely to pass (fingers crossed!). However, whether it passes or not, I think congratulations ar in order as per one of the support votes...

"Anyway, congrats on a well written technical article that is remarkably clear to laypersons. Gzkn 06:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)"

So, erm, yes! congrats to everybody who's worked on this article so hard to bring it from a mere stub a few weeks ago and right up towards the end of the FAC process! Quite the remarkable achievement! A perfect example of what happens when everybody works together in the spirit of Wikipedia :) Crimsone 15:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added a section on historic storms

I've included one storm from Europe, one from the United States, and one from Canada in order to avoid POV. If any of you all know other extratropical cyclones that were similarly historic (especially if they relate to other countries/regions of the globe), feel free to add them, with the appropriate references. Thegreatdr 22:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something's missing...

It seems that, while we do have a "Structure" section in this article, there is nothing here that specifies the exact type of weather that extratropical cyclones produce in laymen's terms. This seems to me to be a glaring error. -Runningonbrains 07:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe we have that covered under effects. Thegreatdr 15:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, can't believe I missed that. Nevermind, sorry to bother. -Runningonbrains 17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A slightly off-topic question...

I've seen Wikipedia's home page a few times tonight, and I notice that this article and the History of erotic depictions article keep swapping places as the featured article. I've never seen this happen before... is there some kind of misunderstanding going on between the admins or what? Just curious, in case anyone knows. Otherwise, sorry for taking up space on the discussion page. G Rose 09:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Try clearing your browser cache. WP is usually pretty good about maintaining consistency on the front page; it might just be your browser getting confused about which page it is reading as the current front page. Damn computers...:) --Theirishpianist 17:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm used to my browser failing to display the current version of a page, but this seems like something different — it was going back and forth between two versions of the front page, which leads me to believe that it was something besides my browser. G Rose 19:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
There is some caching at the server side. I have purged the main page from the caches. Raul654 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 30,000 feet is how many kilometers?

I left a message at the IP's talk page about this, but I'm going to try to follow 1RR and let someone else fix it. I'm pretty sure it's nine kilometers. I think the IP is thinking of 30,000 feet in miles.--Chaser T 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep my mistake< sorry about that i assumed that when somthing was mentioned in imperial units such as feet that the conversion in brackets would be to miles rather than km in order to maintain uniform units. while the conversion as you stated is correct it would to me make more sense to keep the units either all metric or all imperial or to provide conversions for each. sorry about the mistake. -Mark
No sweat. Thanks for the follow-up. I don't really care what we use as long as the figures are accurate. The relevant style guide is here.--Chaser T 01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synoptic chart image in lede

Could somebody please edit that image in the lede section - the orientation of the compass is incorrect, with true north being about 10-15 or so degrees clockwise from its current direction. Crimsone 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave that up to the person who created the idealized image. Thegreatdr 02:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the image now. How does it look? Titoxd(?!?) 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks great! Thanks! :) Crimsone 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding polar/tropical line

A user and an IP (quite possibly the same) has twice removed this line (since reverted). The edit summary on the second occasion reads...

  • I have deleted the line that says 'having neither polar or tropical characteristics." This statement is completely false. An extratopical cyclone is one and the same as a Mid Latitude cyclone!!!)

While I think that it's fairly well agreed that "An extratopical cyclone is one and the same as a Mid Latitude cyclone" (minus the three exclamation marks), I fail to see where such a cylone has polar or tropical characteristics, as defined by the polar and tropical cylone articles. The three types of cyclone are each different, with a polar cyclone perhaps having some characteristics of a tropical one. To use tropical (though perhaps polar too) as the example for comparison, they look different, behave differently, have completely differend wind profiles and structure, and are in fact driven by completely different 'engines'. The two exceptions to this rule aren't really very exceptional either, being both the development of a warm seclusion, and being in the middle of extratropical transition. Even the term "Mid Latitude cyclone" would define them apart (though through place rather than type) from polar and tropical cousins - it's a different type of cyclone entirely, hence the different name and different place. If any of the above is wrong for any reason, please feel free to let me know here (or no-doubt somebody else will anyway). The line has been in the article since the beginning of its re-development, and has been seen by many different eyes since then - some of whome are probably qualified enough to know the difference.)

Were you by any chance thinking about subtropical cyclones? Crimsone 21:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Polar cyclones and tropical cyclones are both driven by latent heat and convection, though Polar cyclones tend to be shallower due to the lower sea surface temperatures they form over and tend to form in more unstable environments than tropical cyclones. They may form in different temperature environments, but their thermodynamics are similar. Thegreatdr 18:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This bit makes No Sense at all (I think)

The bomb known in the UK as the "Great Storm of 1987" - Should it be The Storm known in the UK as .. can someone check it please Jason Rees 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the rest of the article, search for the word "bomb". --Golbez 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's a "jet streak"?

IANAM (I am not a meteorologist), but I don't recognize the term "jet streak" that appears three times in the "Cyclogenesis" section. Does it mean the same thing as jet stream, which is also used in the article? That article doesn't list it, and a search doesn't turn it up either.

-- Ken g6 21:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A jet streak is a wind maximum within the jet stream. This factoid has been added into the text of the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)