Talk:Tropical cyclone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Tropical 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.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Discussion should be limited to this article and related articles. Please keep off-topic discussion to a minimum.
Archives: 1, 2, 3.
Information from Tropical cyclone (or a previous version of it) is being actively used in the pool of 'Did you know?' facts on the Energy Portal.

Contents

[edit] Notable tropical cyclones

Notability. Throughout various Wiki articles, notability can be a rather subjective term. Though the paragraphs have the criteria for notability based on Death Toll, Damage measured in Cost, Storm Intensity, Size, and Duration. Since a separate page notes specific information and data, no need to include in the prose, unless is the current "extreme". KyuuA4 07:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To do

Ok, let's list the things that have to be finished before the article should be sent to FAC. Feel free to add to this list, and cross out things whenever they're done, so we can keep a quick checklist of things to do... Titoxd(?!?) 07:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC) I think this should be protected.--Coolsafe (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Make sure the article is throughly cited This appears to have been done. Thegreatdr 17:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I see one {{fact}} tag, and I don't know where to get the source.--Rmky87 15:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know when an article is thoroughly cited. Is it one reference per paragraph? A reference per interesting fact? I thought we'd cited it thoroughly a week or two ago. Thegreatdr 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much when we can figure out where each number comes from, and which opinion came from where. It's getting up there, the only thing we need is the reference for the Greek Typhon. Titoxd(?!?) 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Found a reference for that. =) Thegreatdr 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yay! That's good, sadly, I found two parts that need more citations; one I flagged with {{fact}} (we need something to reference that the WPac uses primarily the JMA numbers, and since when they started with those), and the other one is the Physical structure section. That one I'm still looking for a reference, so I haven't tagged it, but we need probably a glossary reference, and a reference for the median size of the eye/eyewall. Titoxd(?!?) 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
And ideally, find a primary or secondary source for Indian cyclones, as Encarta is borderline citable... Titoxd(?!?) 07:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I found two... so, yeah. I'm crossing out cleaning out references, as they're done. I'm also raising the article to A-Class, as that was the hardest thing left to do. Titoxd(?!?) 07:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I found several references for the Physical structure section, we now just need a reference for the warm core subheading (to reference "Thus, at any given altitude (except close to the surface where water temperature dictates air temperature) the environment inside the cyclone is warmer than its outer surroundings"; another one for the Outflow paragraph. I think I covered everything else, though. Titoxd(?!?) 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Get Tony1 to review the prose after everything is done

I've reviewed the article, and here's a list of things I think should be done before it goes to FA.

  • In the times of formation section, does an exact date exist for other season peaks? Also, EPAC info should be altered, given the basin peaks earlier. Per NHC climatology, the mid-point is sometime in mid August.
    • I'm probably missing something obvious, but I don't see where it says that the EPac peaks in mid-August... Titoxd(?!?) 23:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The EPAC graph shows that the date for 50th percentile for the storms appears to be August 12 (average date for 8th storm), or about a month earlier than the Atlantic. The 50th percentile for hurricanes is about August 20 (average date for 4.5th hurricane), as well. There's probably an exact date out there, or at least some source saying EPAC peaks earlier. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • History of tropical cyclone naming should probably go earlier in the tropical cyclone naming section
  • The dissipation section could use some more examples for the examples given
    • Again, how many examples are too many examples? Titoxd(?!?) 03:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It should be proseified without the two sub-sections. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ensure similarities among references.
  • Check that the tense is the same throughout the article when talking about the overall topic.

It's getting there. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The effects: move away from the POV: "damaging" and "beneficial", to "direct" and "indirect".--Nilfanion (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We may need to create a tropical cyclone naming page, so we can shrink what is currently on this page to something short and succinct (a paragraph or two). What do you all think? Thegreatdr 17:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... something like Tropical cyclone scales, or something different? Titoxd(?!?) 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, at second glance, List of tropical cyclone names already generally accomplishes what I was thinking. I'm wondering if we could just add all the minutia in the main tropical cyclone article to List of Tropical Cyclone Names, and possibly rename that article Tropical cyclone naming. Then we could shrink the naming section in this article to make the tropical cyclone article more manageable. Thegreatdr 21:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It should be there, although the rename would cause massive breakage all over the place (it is linked from almost everywhere)... so, I agree, some part of it should be moved there. Now, what exactly should be moved? Titoxd(?!?) 03:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, we can always recruit a bot to do that. Let's do it. I've moved the renaming section to the Lists of names article, and I'm considering moving other sections there as well. Titoxd(?!?) 05:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that someone has created a naming page, the section was slashed down to a paragraph. That should substantially help with the length of the article. Thegreatdr 16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is just way too long to get it to FA. -- Juliancolton (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not terribly. It's about 56 kb of prose, when images and references are removed. 56 kb, for a subject this big, isn't too long. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I saw that it was 101 kb, And I didn't think about the space the pictures, and references take up. -- Juliancolton (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Indian Ocean tc naming

I don't understand how it is decided when to name a tropical cyclone in the Northern Indian Ocean. Like Onil this year wasn't even recognized by the JTWC and it got a name, but several stronger storms go nameless. I looked in the article, but couldn't find any info. It should be added if there's a source. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whenever it reaches 34kts. Storms are always named by the RSMCs and not any unofficial warning centres. P.K. 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Tropical cyclone scales (the primary article for that). Titoxd(?!?) 22:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
But there's been plenty of storms since naming began that have exceeded 34kts. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 00:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Naming only began in 2004. Any storms since 2004 determined to be 34 kt by IMD gets named. – Chacor 01:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
JTWC calling a storm stronger than 34kts doesn't guarantee naming. It's what the RSMCs acknowledge that matters. —Cuiviénen 16:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks!

I just took a peek at the page history, and was shocked at how many revisions have gone on in the last 24 hours. Insert appropriate expletive here! In any case, I just wanted to thank you for keeping on with it. samwaltz 21:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review of article

I've reviewed this article (specifically referring to this version). The article on the whole is good, this is a list of problems (I don't need to give us the slap on the back :)). These need to be addressed either in article or rejected as irrelevant through discussion here. The order reflects the layout of the article, not the importance of the points. I've tried to identify content problems, but I don't think I have adequately reviewed those at this time.

  1. The article is 111KB total length. This is probably not excessive given the importance of the topic, but it suggests that the lead may be too short. However, more subarticles could only be a good thing.
    1. A small percentage of this article has been removed per repition with existing subarticles, which briefly reduced its size to 94kb a few weeks ago. It has grown since then, however. Thegreatdr 17:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      1. Its getting there... but still very excessive :(--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. The article has erratic placement of units. For example, the lead uses US Customary (SI); other forms are used elsewhere. The precise measurement scheme used is not that important, but should be consistent throughout unless there is a specific reason for a certain order.
  3. Notwithstanding the above, SI (USC) is the preferable format for this article and knots should be used where appropriate.
    1. Agreed, will modify wherever I see that. SI (Imperial) should be the unit order. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      1. New efforts have been made to ensure either knots or SI have billing over imperial units. Thegreatdr 13:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. The TOC shows a number of problems. The article could do with a reordering. We are as always obsessed with a relatively trivial concept (that is naming) and it comes very early. A systematic reordering would make more sense. IMO this order is logical: Structure, Basin info, Formation/track/dissipation, effects, forecasting (including naming and classification) then the rest. This gives in order: What a TC is, where TCs exist, how they form, what they do and then what humans do with them. The fact a strong TC has an "eye" is more important than the concept of a "Category 5 hurricane".
Done. Hurricanehink (talk)
  1. The Classification, terminology, and naming section has a number of problems; not least its name like many section headings throughout it seems clumsy. More precise issues:
    1. Classification refers to three and only three classes of storms: TD, TS and H-equivalent. This doesn't match reality for many of the basins; and is the first real sign of the US bias in the article.
      1. How much is too much detail for this article? At the same time, we use Saffir-Simpson scales throughout Wikipedia, we should at least cover that in detail. WPac is the most active basin, and the differences (typhoon/super typhoon) are covered. Perhaps STS should be as well. But everything else seems overkill. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    2. Categories and ranking is selective not comprehensive. It mentions the SSHS, JTWC, Aus and SWIO; why not the others?
      1. Because ideally, it shouldn't talk about any. Those should be sent to Tropical cyclone scales. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    3. This seems like the ideal section for the whole 1-minute/10-minute nonsense. Where is it? The JTWC has published papers comparing the two (dig around on the PTS talkpages).
      1. That is, or should be, on Tropical cyclone scales, again. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    4. Section is still showing bias - to the WPac and NOAA basins. H-equivalency is called something else elsewhere ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. The next section is 'Origin of the word "hurricane"'. As a subsection is has 'Origin of storm terms'. Do I really need to expand on why this is the wrong way around?
    1. It should be "Origin of storm names" all around. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      1. There's too much etymological detail here - for this article is suffices to know they are "typhoons", "hurricanes" etc - the origins of the words should be in the subarticles.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. The content of the section runs-on from the previous section. They need merging and reorganising. It appears this part of the layout may have been an unintentional error.
  4. The final para of the section refers to the origin of cyclone. This does not refer to its usage to describe TCs (although the storm in question was a TC), but the word itself and the much broader concept.
    1. Should be moved to Cyclone. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Both sections cover current nomenclature issues. An overview of how TCs were known in the past is significant. What did the US do before the SSHS? How and when did "Hurricane" gain its modern meaning?
    1. Subarticle. No need for that to be covered here, it's too much bloat. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. The next section is "Major basins and related warning centers". This is long for a section title, something simple and to the point like "Tropical cyclone basins" would do.
    1. Tropical cyclogenesis isn't strictly relevant here; a subarticle like Tropical cyclone basins is more logical.
    2. The section is apparently about the basins, yet nowhere is there a statement like "There are X ocean basins that see (significant) TC development; these are the Atl, NE Pac... We aren't actually told that simple fact explicitly.
      1. Just moved that chunk to RSMC last night. Feel free to bring back some data, not all of it. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    3. The first section is about the Warning centers, am I missing something? The RSMC/TCWC are important yes. But the basins themselves are more important, the section on the formations (with my pic in it...) should come first.
      1. It was due to the way it was previously organized, before the partial cut to RSMC. The RSMCs were briefly discussed, with a rather-detailed discussion about the basins following that. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    4. Catarina is being given undue weight. This is probably due to the absence of prose on the main basins.
  7. "When Naming occurs". Another bad section title... This belongs with the Classification section, they should be together in the article. A subarticle (not a list) would be good.
    1. The NIO is missed out.
    2. This section seems to address some issues I raised in #9 above. My reading of this section is that it should deal with two things: the evolution of the concept of naming (ending with IMD starting to name) and current practice in each of the basins.
      1. Only current practice should be in this article, IMO. Anything historical should be summarized extremely, and sent off to Lists of tropical cyclone names. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Mechanics and structure both deal with two aspects of the same thing: What a TC is and how it works. Very good, why do we have two full sections here?
    1. Mechanics is how it works; structure is how it is divided. I don't see why they should be combined. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. The prose of Mechanics is a bit dense, it could do with breaking up somewhat (subsections).
    1. No, the TOC is long as it is, and how would you split it? Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Structure really should have a subarticle. Encyclopaedia Britannica has such a thing, how can we really claim ours is better (that FA implies) without it?
    1. Eye (cyclone) exists, and other subarticles should. Perhaps eventually, but I'm not sure that the article has an inadequate summary. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    Outflow (meteorology), convection (meteorology), tropical cyclone banding off the top of my head don't have articles. – Chacor 03:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Leaving aside the lack of a subarticle, which allows summary style to feedback here; why is this very important (imho THE most important) section a list?
    1. Why not? Having paragraphs of prose doesn't really accomplish much but require transitions. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Formation has another list. At least it has a real subarticle, can we summarize it back in effectively?
    1. List != bad. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. The ITCZ is mentioned. Tropical waves aren't and they are what most hurricanes form from...
    1. Yes, and hurricanes in the north Atlantic and eastern Pacific basin make up between 1/4 and 1/3 of tropical cyclones that reach sustained 64 knot winds worldwide. The monsoon trough/ITCZ is more important globally than African easterly waves. If you want to throw one line in the article about tropical waves, fine. We do not need to say much about tropical waves in this article since they're already talked about extensively in, um, tropical wave. Thegreatdr 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      Agree. "Another important source of atmospheric instability is found in tropical waves, which cause about 85% of intense tropical cyclones in the Atlantic ocean,[28] and which most of the tropical cyclones in the Eastern Pacific basin.[29][30]" seems adequate enough for me. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      Only one paragraph is needed for the description of the source phenomena here. Most should be in the subarticle! ITCZ should have primacy, but some mention of TWs is as necessary.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      I'm lost. Isn't that how the article is laid out currently? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      Yep, I'm just saying the current level of info is about right. Trimming or expansion of that section would be wrong imo.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. ITCZ and TW may be the two major sources of TCs. How about the minor ones? Like what happened to the perfect storm?
    1. We can't, nor should, go into every single possibility of tropical cyclone formation. Six sigmas. Nobody cares. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Movement and tracks seems pretty good. However, some NHem bias here recurvature happens in the SHem too.
    1. Throw a reference in, and perhaps. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. An expanded explanation of the distinction between direct hit and landfall would be nice.
    1. Leave that for Landfall (meteorology). It's rather short as it is. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Dissipation is listified, prose would be better.
  18. Artificial dissipation has excessive detail relative to natural. The natural methods happen all the time, Stormfury is no longer current and didn't work anyway. The rest of the section is speculative.
    1. Feel free to hack away. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Observation has a distinct Atlantic bias. This is inevitable given that recon only really happens there now and so most methods are only really available there. However, the layout basically gives "observation of Atlantic hurricanes". The fact only satellite data is used for the most part should be covered, as well as satellite observation itself (Dvorak and other things).
    1. Ok. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Historical means are not really covered. The history of TC observation began with the hurricane hunters? The article almost gives that impression.
    1. Should they be covered? Again, it adds unnecessary bloat. There's a
  21. Forecasting deals more with trends in forecasting than how forecasting is done. It also shows recentism, as how was forecasting done in the 20s? Not with computer models for sure ;)
    1. Check out the change I made earlier today and see if that helps out this section. Thegreatdr 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Effects.. now IMO this is the worst part of the article in my view.
    1. First off, there's a see also to rainfall climatology. Relevant yes, but where's the subarticle?
    2. There's a list, and not a very detailed one at that. Seriously, prose is VITAL here...
    3. I'm not convinced its comprehensive. Read this. Worthy of inclusion in the "secondary" effects?
    4. Beneficial effects, like artificial dissipation gets bias towards it simply because it is prose. At a glance, we almost seem to be saying TCs are a good thing.
    5. The last para here seems out of place. Hurricane Dennis made Hurricane Emily stronger. Can someone explain to me how this is beneficial? Seriously reducing SSTs is just an effect, it can be good or bad.
  23. The notable TC section seems excessive in length to me really. For a start the section title might want reviewing, "notable" is a term best used cautiously on WP after all.
    1. Completely disagree. This isn't AFD. Most of the examples are needed there; perhaps Gafilo and Paka aren't, but they're needed to balance out the NAtl/EPac storms. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      1. Nope of course its not AFD. However, this is a trivia section as it stands. The vast majority of the content should go. The global record holders (Tip, Bhola, Katrina) should remain as should a very limited number of other storms.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Some of the content in here would best be in an expanded impact section. For example, Paka wasn't that notable but that wind gust is.
  25. There's recentism. Gafilo was the worst in 20 years? What was that storm of 20 years ago that was worse then? Surely it would be more notable.
    1. And how would you reference that? Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      1. If you know its true, you investigate using dead wood sources. Its absurd to include something like that merely because you can reference that (but not the earlier storm). Content > referencing.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. A fewer number of storms would make more sense really, yes it would give more coverage to some of the basins; but that is kind of inevitable given some just have so much more go on in them.
  27. I don't think pop culture should be in this section, and certainly not as a bolted on paragraph. If it belongs in another section and not one in its own right (I think it should get it), impact is the logical one.
    1. Frankly, pop culture is trivia and shouldn't even be in the article. Even though I was the one who expanded that section, I think it should be removed altogether. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      1. Pop culture is generally trivia, but cultural impact is probably a significant concept for the impact article (if not necessarily for here).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. The long term effects is another section that should be subarticled...
  29. I'm not remotely surprised that Global warming rates its own subsection, though I wonder if its truly NPOV (thankfully the only place that arises). It feels slightly pro-Global warming=more TCs to me...
    1. The latest IPCC report pretty much blames an increased incidence of tropical cyclones on global warming. Indicating otherwise would be giving undue weight to non-consensus scientific views, which should be avoided. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      1. Titoxd is right. Wikipedia is all about consensus. As long as this is the consensus viewpoint, it should be reflected in the article. Thegreatdr 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. It might be an idea to expand the related cyclones, not least to cover transitions between them and TCs.
    1. At the same time, there's enough things to worry about in the rest of the article, that expanding this section while the rest of the article needs to be cut seems to be a Bad Idea® to me. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. The see also needs a rethink. It has cross-space links (to category space) and the links to the current seasons have questionable value to the article.
    1. Agreed. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. My gut reaction to the ELs is linkspam. Some are truly bad links and should be removed.
Agreed, done. Hurricanehink (talk)
  1. The article handles global warming pretty well, but the ELs seem to show some bias...
Done. Hurricanehink (talk)

There that's a lot. I know I've missed a lot, I haven't given an in-depth content review for instance, just highlighting the obvious problems (to me). Likewise, I will have missed minor stylistic stuff. In general, the content feels fairly good but more detail would be better. The image use is great but not perfect (more pics in impact showing the major types for example). The biggest problem I have with this article is this: I'm familiar with the subject matter. I read one section and see that it misses out on a few concepts that should be included and I mentally place them as "should be covered there". Then I read on a bit and find those issues in a completely different section. To me it feels like it has covered those concepts twice as a result; whilst the hard facts are probably mentioned only once. Even with 0 knowledge of TCs I think I would notice the topic bouncing back and forth a bit. In short, there's a lot of specific issues above, but the most needed thing is a full scale restructure of the article, so related topics actually flow together properly.

Oh and a final point. Please Peer Review this before an FAC run. I know WPTC has been unsuccessful on that process with most of our stuff. However, this article is conceptually different to an article on just another storm, the more pairs of eyes the better!--Nilfanion (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair review. I've crossed out the ones that I addressed. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It will be Peer Reviewed, don't worry about that. However, I don't want this article to have more detail, as we're already way over the line where people begin to complain about WP:SIZE. A reestructure would be all right, but I'm trying to think how it would be better to reorganize it. Titoxd(?!?) 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
One comment to this. I agree the article is long, however the focus in places is bad: too much info on naming issues, too many examples (you can drop some safely here), not enough impact for example. I think the best way to do this would be to expand adding what's missing and not worry about bloat. Likewise don't worry too much about referencing with this (as long as its true). Part of the problem is many parts of the article have inadequate subarticle support. Adding the info here, then creating the subarticles from the new content and then summarizing back is probably the way forward.--Nilfanion (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Since someone has created a naming subarticle, I removed everything but the first paragraph of this section. Everything else looked like redudancy from the subarticle. I also placed the table from the categorization article into this one, and eliminated a great deal of text we previously used to describe basin differences. Again, this text looked word-for-word the same as the categorization article. This slashing reduced the size of the article to 94 kb, which seems more manageable. I agree with one of the above sections that the notable cyclone section is large, but don't know how to pare it back any without introducing some basin-centered POV. Thegreatdr 16:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Section most in need of work: impact. Get a load of content into the to-be-written Effects of tropical cyclones. Once thats done look to see what needs to come back into this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you created a subarticle concerning effects of tropical cyclones, we would only need a paragraph or two concerning the effects in this article. The rest would be covered by the subarticle. The last thing we need for this article to balloon back to its former size. It is almost as large now (99 kb) as it was before my last edit to shrink it down 14 kb. Thegreatdr 20:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I created the article. It dropped the article size down about 5 kb. Thegreatdr 22:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not A-Class

I just ended up here from reading through Hurricane Iniki again, which is today's featured article, and I was very surprised to see that the rating of this article was raised to A-class. I'm not sure I'd even pass it on GA; the organization is very poor and we've still accomplished little in terms of fixing systemic bias within the article. There is also still far too much focus on naming. A-class means that the article has a good chance of passing FAC; right now, this article should barely slip through GAC. I've lowered it to GA-class. —Cuiviénen 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypercane?

....i dont think i need to say more ya likely knoow! But in case you dont here it is: "The hypercane"

  • winds 500mph+
  • size: BIG!!!
  • Power: it will make katrina look like tropical depression # 1

My point: I want to know is the in for on the mega hurricane ok as a subject?--Mr.Taka 16:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That last sentence makes no sense. Also, no such thing, never can happen, never did happen, I don't know what you're talking about. --Golbez 17:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's already an article on hypercane. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mechanics

This is now the longest section of the article. If we created an article, such as warm core cyclone that explains most of the specifics, it would allow us to shorten this section significantly. What do you all think? Thegreatdr 14:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that mechanics is the "meat" section of Tropical cyclone, so I'd be wary of shortening it... that's my opinion, though. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, this is an encyclopaedia entry not a meteorology journal. I think a separate article on mechanics and a summary here might be better. Tomgreeny 21:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with a separate article. I still strongly object to shortening this part of the article, as it is the primary difference between TCs and other types of cyclones. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] link censorship of globalboiling.com

There is unwarranted and abusive censorship activity about the link to the science site globalboiling.com. Perhaps some people don't want people to see the facts with their own eyes in the actual sensor data so they keep trying to censor this link.

Please support this link. Why? Clearly it is a live link which allows regular people to see the relationships between warmer ocean temperatures and storm formation that includes tropical storm formation (perhaps cyclones and torpical cyclones and hurricanes should be retitled hurricanes and cyclones.)

Thus it is obviously a relevant and unique link which makes it much easier for those seeking more info to find it all in one place without searching the depthsof other places. Isn't that what good links do!

Wiki DOES allow external links and this one is relevant. It is also clearly not spam or a membership site and has a minimal - actually no advertising. (It has only links to some amazon books for more info which is far less than most sites linked whihc directly ask for contributions and support.) This link to globalboiling.com should be supported. please help stop peopel who are trying to block it with repeated reversion edits which are themselves agaisnt wiki policy (see the three reversion rule).

If you want to get rid of this link you need to start taking out the others as well. How about a no link wiki? No, so leave relevant links alone!

Another thing please remember - Those of us who are amateurs trying to live up to the spirit of wiki should not have reinsert over and over to fight these tyrannical people who seem to have nothing better to do than with very little justification than randomly declare other people's effort at contributiing to be spam or junk when clearly they are not.

Wiki means contributions from the wolrd not jus tthe insiders who patrol on a power trip and censor other's contributions. Start living up to the spirit of wiki! Just because I am not a omnipresent editor and actually have to do work and can't spend time repatroling this edit page please don't censor my stuff or the stuff of others unless it is CLEARLY spam or garbage. obviousy globalboiling.com uses reputable scienctific data and presents it to the people so it isn't either.

Sorry for the rant but kinda tired of people abusively censoring with obviously not even looking at the linked page. If you aren't going to take the time to examine the link then don't cnesor it! inclusion from the public is the default in wikipedia not exclusion.

Thanks and sorry for the rant but annoyed wiki readers are being denied knowledge of such a great link like globalboiling.com

and if the instructions were more clear on how to do so i would sign this but they aren't. this whole editing interface and communication system is very new contributor UNFREINDLY. Perhaps something should be done about that is well.

Otherwise wiki rocks! Geopilotwiki 23:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Geopilotwiki

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page, although it is not really good practice to send the same message to page after page [1]. The issues I see here are (i) Relevance, (ii) Lack of interpretation of raw data, (iii) advocacy, and (iv) inaccessible/unreadable web design, (v) links to highly speculative theories from the site. WP:EL does prohibit links to original research, irrelevant material (since the page does not focus on storms per se, just weather data). Even if the page were to meet WP:EL, editors can nad must be judicious about which links to include, and poor or inaccesible design is a perfectly legitemate criteria to use in that regard. Adding the same link, repeatedly, to multiple articles is also generally frowned upon. --TeaDrinker 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sub article mania and POV

In the original review back in December, it was mentioned that this article could be shrunk by adding a number of subarticles. Many of the originally requested subarticles have been created, which has acted to limit the growth of the TC article, and has only led to a limited reduction in the article's size. POV was also mentioned, since, as an example, the term hurricane seemed to have slipped into the article an inordinate number of times. Have these issues been resolved to most people's satisfaction? If so, we may want to go ahead with some type of article review before submitting to FAC, hopefully with some decent singing and dancing included. =) Thegreatdr 13:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I've thought that subarticle-ing the article too much was not a good thing, and the biggie (Effects of tropical cyclones) has been made, I'd say go ahead. The article is large, but it also includes a lot of references, which inflate the KB count without a corresponding increase in prose size. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thegreatdr 19:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've got it on my watchlist as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully we get a couple good editors similar to the ones that have contributed to the surface weather analysis peer review so far. Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting has only netted an automated review, so far. Thegreatdr 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclones and Ice Ages

I think it's logical to say that if there was an ice age right now, hurricanes would either not form (due to far less heat available), or they would be far weaker (like Tropical Storms, Category 1 Hurricanes). I think that the reason we are not in an Ice Age right now, is that we have Hurricanes/Cyclones/Typhoons carrying heat and energy from the tropics northwards to the polar areas. What's the wikipedia concensus on this idea? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 22:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's completely original research, and should stay away from Wikipedia as much as possible. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but would it be possible to discuss or debate it if i found some respectable sources on that topic, such as NASA, or NOAA, for example? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't really a place for discussion or debates, and I don't know how appropriate it would be on this page. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Very well. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
A few of us speculated on the subject at a conference 4 years ago. There is no known published paper on the topic...so there is no reason to add this to the article. You can always talk about this on the hurricane wiki site, and I'll let you know what our consensus was on the topic, based on the limited climatology available. Oh yeah, and we are within an interglacial period of an ice age right now. Thegreatdr 13:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming disagreement

I must say, I take significant issue with the one-sided portrayal the long-terms, and specifically, global warming, sections have. The debate on whether storms are increasing in intensity isn't settled, but it is put forth as if it is. I am not asking for a complete reversal in standpoint of the article, but this article deserves a POV tag. I am a tropical meteorologist, currently doing idealized dynamical research on the effects of global shear, watched the intense debate at the last hurricane conference (2006 in Monterrey), and participated in class discussions where it became apparent that amongst professors and students there still is nowhere near a dominant majority. I do not directly do research on global warming, and don't feel myself quite versed enough to be any sort of expert or make up other's minds. But this article came across very one-sided. While the first paragraph identifies a significant calmer, that no single year/storm can be credited to global warming, from there, the three subjects of the paragraphs are: Kerry Emanuel/a GFDL study, Peter Webster/Emanuel, and the IPCC decision. The two authors are the biggest proponents of GW induced intensity increase, and the article presents it as if there is no disagreement. There is no mention of opponents such as Chris Landsea, William Gray, Roger Pielke, etc. Just a quick internet search turned up many active discussions in regards to the issue: http://www.gfdl.gov/~tk/manuscripts/IWTC_Summary.pdf http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G3.html http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/4075849a6468.html http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html

Specifically of interest may be the IWTC-VI, which, from my memory came around the same time as the larger IPCC post (the link is someone's website, but I was unable to find it on an official website of any sort. however it is on many scientist's websites) and the AMS information statement. Note:

Weather patterns will continue to vary from day to day and from season to season, but it is likely that the frequency of extreme weather will change. A growing body of recent scientific work suggests that hurricanes have become more intense over the last several decades. There is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date. Though hurricanes are projected to intensify with further warming of sea surface temperatures, significant uncertainty remains as to how other influences on hurricane strength will change in the future. Midlatitude storm tracks are likely to shift poleward, with fewer but more intense storms.

I'm not sure my voice will be heard, no shock there. This article is supposedly of high quality (I don't generally disagree). I could NPOV it or change it myself, but I believe it is more fair to just note the disagreement (I see no subject in this talk about GW) and let other's choose whether they will hear it. Thanks JeopardyTempest 08:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I did add a little bit (because I do know that Landsea generally disputes the intensity/GW relationship), but I'm wary of adding more, as the IPCC is supposedly a consensus statement. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
One must keep in mind that wikipedia is meant to be the consensus view on a topic. It is not a media organization or news article, where all sides of the arguments must be covered. Thegreatdr 21:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If this would be applied throughout Wikipedia, my estimate would be that Wikipedia would be ~40% smaller 91.153.63.71 12:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I hadn't checked in in a while, but am really impressed with the current wording, and I have no POV difficulty whatsoever. For all the edits (Titoxd) and passes (Thegreatdr), great work and thanks. (In looking into the consensus standards on wiki, it looks like it means the general authorship should be at a consensus, not that it should reflect a specific viewpoint suggested to be consensus....... it's not important anymore, though!). Glad this worked out well, and I hope it keeps going strong. You guys have done some great work in this article! JeopardyTempest 08:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see my post re new thinking on global warming and hurricanes (I accidently put it under the wrong heading). Thanks

Gandydancer (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclone Catarina

Perhaps there should be some mention of Cyclone Catarina under the notable storms section? It would be appropriate since it is the only recorded landfall of a hurricane in the Southern Atlantic Ocean and Brazil. --Hdt83 Chat 05:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Aside of that, it just doesn't match up with storms that killed 100,000+, for example. It is mentioned slightly in the basins section. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead photo on the begining of this article is a satalite picture of catarina. Juliancolton 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


"Hurricane Expert Reassesses Link to Warming" has been in the headlines recently since Kerry Emanuel, the M.I.T. climate scientist who in the 1980’s foresaw a rise in hurricane intensity in a human-warmed world and in 2005, just a few weeks before Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans, asserted in a Nature paper that he had found statistical evidence linking rising hurricane energy and warming. He now says, "The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us. There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet."

Article here with link to his study:http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/hurricane-expert-reassesses-climate-link/

Gandydancer (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a link

I work for the America's Most Wanted Safety Center, a new department of America's Most Wanted getting away from the capturing of criminals, and branching out to all aspects of safety. I feel a link to our post about hurricane preparedness would be appropriate and mutually beneficial, as anyone seeking knowledge on hurricanes would benefit from knowledge about hurricane safety. The link is http://www.amw.com/safety/?p=59 please consider it. Jrosenfe 14:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miscalculation on Megatons?

Under the section on Mechanics, the following paragraph discusses the amount of engergy in a tropical cyclone:

Scientists at the [[National Center for Atmospheric Research]] estimate that a tropical cyclone releases heat
 energy at the rate of 50 to 200 [[1000000000000 (number)|trillion]] [[joule]]s per day.<ref name="NOAA Question
 of the Month"/> For comparison, this rate of energy release is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical
 generating capacity per day,<ref name="NOAA Question of the Month"/> or to exploding a 10-[[megaton]]
 [[nuclear bomb]] every 20 minutes.<ref name="UCAR">[[University Corporation for Atmospheric Research]]
 [http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/hurricanes/index.jsp Hurricanes: Keeping an eye on weather's biggest bullies]
 accessed March 31, 2006</ref>

Looking at the article under TNT equivalent, I see a conversion of 1 Megaton = 4.184×10^9 J.

5x10^13 J / 4.184x10^9 J/Mt = 11950Mt

so, that's 1195 10-megaton devices every 24 hours. That's 49.8 devices per hour, or one device every 1.2 minutes...

Four times as many if we take the higher 2x10^14 J estimate.

Is my math wrong, the conversion wrong, or the text wrong?

To further confuse things, the primary source given for the "50 to 200 trillion joules per day" quote (#16, the NOAA Question of the Month link), actually says:

Using the latent heat of condensation, this amount of rain produced gives 5.2 x 1019 Joules/day or 6.0 x 1014 Watts. This is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity—an incredible amount of energy produced.

That's 5.2 x 10^19 J/day, 6.0 x 10^14 J/second (I assume, from the rest of the numbers in the article, that somehow the scientific notation formatting didn't make it into the HTML...).

So... that's actually 52 Quintillion J/day, which is a heck of a lot more 10 megaton devices...

The primary source for the "10 megton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes" quote (#20, the "Hurricanes: Keeping an eye on weather's biggest bullies" link) actually says:

Even smaller hurricanes pack a mind-boggling amount of power. The heat energy released by a hurricane equals 50 to 200 trillion watts—or about the same amount of energy released by exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes.

Now, 50 trillion watts is 5x10^13J again but this time per second, rather than per day...

5x10^13J / 4.184x10^9 J/Mt is still 11,950Mt, but now it's 11.9 gigatons per second...

SOMETHING has got to be wrong with SOME of the math here...

Blueguy76 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... this reference indicates 5.2 x 1019 J/day or 6.0 x 1014 W. This other page (both by the AOML) corroborates the 5 to 20x1013 W, and states the same sentence:

The heat release is equivalent to a 10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes. According to the 1993 World Almanac, the entire human race used energy at a rate of 1013 watts in 1990, a rate less than 20% of the power of a hurricane.

So that leaves us with:
5-20 \times 10^{13}{\tfrac{J}{s}} \cdot {\frac{86400 s}{day}} =4.32 - 17.28 \times 10^{18}{\tfrac{J}{day}}
So they don't even agree with their own numbers? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1-min winds

Could an additional column be placed on the end of the TC Classifications table, showing the 1-minute windspeeds that correspond to the last two columns (JTWC and NHC/CPHC)? Margie 02:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We would need a source with the conversion factors, which vary per agency. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] megatons joules trillions etc

This article is confused on joules, megatons and trillions. In English a trillion is 10^12 not 10^18 as in some other languages (see Wikipedia article on trillion). Thus 50 to 200 trillion joules should be 50 to 200 million-trillion. If you look up megaton in Wikipedia it is 4 x 10^15 joules and this becomes a 10 megaton bomb about every minute, not every 20 minutes. I tried to edit the article but it was changed back, so I'll leave this comment.71.130.50.34 12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Culture

When was a tropical cyclone featured in that show? Can someone add the information to Tropical cyclones in popular culture? Cheers! bd2412 T 02:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how such information brings encyclopedic information about cyclones? Toddstreat1 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the Fujiwhara Effect

How about someone creating a link to The Fujiwhara Effect in the links section?
Or maybe put it in the "movement and track" section of this article?

[edit] Coriolis effect

The Coriolis effect also initiates cyclonic rotation, but it is not the driving force that brings this rotation to high speeds. These speeds instead result from conservation of angular momentum. This means that air is drawn in from an area much larger than the cyclone such that the tiny rotational speed (originally imparted by the Coriolis effect) is magnified greatly as the air is drawn into the low pressure center.[1]

I removed this from the article; as far as I know this is simply not true, nor does the reference provide anything supporting it. Angular momentum DOES work that way, but is a fairly small effect compared to friction over the times and distances involved. The actual driving force is heat of condensation. — jdorje (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altitude of storms?

One question that has puzzled me is the height of hurricanes and what goes on at the extreme altitudes of hurricanes. I seem to recall reading that hurricanes extend to 40-60,000 ft. (a high altitude scientific flight at 60K' had to move higher because of turbulence?) and have some rather exciting electrical phenomena up there. I request that this aspect of the storms be developed in some way by someone who knows about such things. At the very least, some rough numbers as to the heights of the storms could be given. Thx, Bdushaw 07:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] kn or kt?

Hurricanehink's recent edit affirms that RMSC prefers kt to kn as an abbreviation for knot. Can anyone get me a reference for that? If it is an authoritative source, I would like to include it in the knot article, which at the moment indicates a preference or kn. Also (and please forgive my ignorance here), who or what are RMSC? Thanks in advance. Thunderbird2 15:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I got the wrong acronym. It's the RSMC's, which are Regional Specialised Meteorological Centres. All six RSMC's uses knots. NHC, CPHC, JMA, IMD, and I can't find links to the other two RSMC's. Furthermore, this WMO link (the WMO being the World Meteorological Organization) uses KTS for knots, not kns. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see, but these are not recommendations or guidelines are they? Just examples of someone's interpretation. Or perhaps just "the way it's always been done"? It is the guidelines themselves that I would like to read. For example, those links mostly use KT or KTS, whereas weather related Wikipedia articles tend to use kt or kts. Why the difference in case? Thunderbird2 16:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that all 4 of those links issue advisories in all caps. As for the other part, we, WP:WPTC will normally use what the RSMC's use in tropical cyclone articles. ---CWY2190TC 16:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so let's ignore the upper case versions then. But if there is no guideline, how do you know when to use kt and when to use kts? Thunderbird2 16:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your right. There is no guideline. Normally I use kt and I rarely see kts used. ---CWY2190TC 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:UNITS: In scientific articles, SI units are the main units of measure, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to use them (for example, Hubble’s constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1) Here, there's a compelling pragmatic reason why we use knots (e.g., the advisories are usually sent in knots), and we use kt instead of kts because kts is ambiguous with kt•s; besides, the plural is not really needed with the vast majority of unit abbreviations. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A number of Pacific typhoon articles use kts. Here's an example. I wondered also what is meant by the term "intensity" when applied to a tropical cyclone. Does it have a precise definition, or is it just a vague term that is interchangeable with (say) "strength"? Thunderbird2 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a synonym of strength, determined by wind speeds and sometimes minimal central barometric pressure values. The article Tropical cyclone scales should go into detail about that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to comment here. Thunderbird2 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Link Video Add

I'd like to add a video entitled "Is Global Climate Change Affecting Hurricanes?" which has Prof. Kerry Emanuel, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences of Massachusetts Institute of Technology lecturing on the subject. The link is http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=19645&fID=345 (this does not automatically open the video). Please let me know what you think. --ResearchChannel 03:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against it, but I'd be interested to know if there is a link within the journal for this video. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Pacific hurricanes

This article says explicitly that 'hurricane' is not used for the South Pacific, but the first and second pages of this RSMC Nadi report uses it [2]. Good kitty 19:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting, and the report also says Category 3 - do they use SSHS as well? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think they're referring to AUS categories, adding another layer of complexity to those SHem articles. Good kitty 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, there needs to be a categorization standard for cyclones. However, it is not our place to decide upon that. KyuuA4 (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we resubmit the article for peer review/FA?

Six months have passed since the previous peer review, and it would be a good thing if the main article within the TC project made it to FA status. The question is, have we fully addressed the concerns expressed this past June yet? Thegreatdr (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, peer review would be fine. FA might be pushing it right now, though. Juliancolton (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through and made small changes to the wording in the article, which appeared to be needed per the talk page, FAC page, and previous peer review page. A couple errors were also corrected. Want to wait until a few editors are in agreement that the article should go back through peer review before resubmitting it through that process. If we're not close to FA, peer review might not be necessary yet if the problems are that glaring. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Convert templates have finally been added to the article. Went ahead and submitted article for FA, for a third time. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It is done. Thanks to all the reviewers and editors that helped with the passage of FA. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Related portuguese word

The related Portuguese word tufão, used in Portuguese for any tropical cyclone, is also 
derived from Greek tuphōn.

It's not truth! Portuguese uses tufão only for tropical cyclones in Western Pacific. Portuguese also uses furacão for tropical cyclones in North Atlantic and Eastern Pacific and ciclone in other basins. In Portuguese Wikipedia, Hurricane Dean is Furacão Dean, and Typhoon Sepat is Tufão Sepat. Ramisses (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it, per your suggestion. Do you know of a good reference we can use to qualify the change? Thegreatdr (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I fixed the reference. Ramisses (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The reference is broken. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Typhoon is from the Japanese word taifuu (台風) which means 'wind from Taiwan' since that's where typhoons seem to come from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.226.53.185 (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simplify introduction

The introduction/article overview is too complicated and doesn't quickly explain that a cyclone is the same/also referred to as hurricane, tornado, etc. For those people searching to understand what a Tropical Cyclone is (because they don't immediately realize it's a hurricane, this article is quite obfuscated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.130.200 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I turned to Wikipedia after Cyclone Nargis to find out why it wasn't a hurricane. Although the article says "Depending on their location and strength, tropical cyclones are referred to by other names, such as hurricane, typhoon, tropical storm, cyclonic storm, tropical depression and simply cyclone", we are not told what these locations and strengths are. The writers of this article seem intent on abandoning the word 'hurricane', although it does appear in the Beaufort Scale article. The Hurricane (disambiguation) article says: "In the United States of America, Hurricane is the name assigned specifically to a tropical cyclone of sufficient intensity in the Atlantic and East Pacific basins" - again, we are not told what this 'sufficient intensity' is, or what it is that has to be intense. Wikipedia is a source for ordinary people not meteorologists. Myrvin (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the section on classification does all this Myrvin (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
We're limited on the information we can include in the lead section, so we include all of that information on the Intensity classifications section of the article. We also have a tropical cyclone scales article about the topic. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming

I removed the sentance, "Additionally, the report considered that it is likely that storm intensity will continue to increase through the 21st century, and declared it more likely than not that there has been some human contribution to the increases in tropical cyclone intensity." I searched the reference throughly, and could not find these claims. If they are there, please cite page numbers when restoring it. Fireproeng (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am apparently not looking at the correct reference. The URL referenced does not contain the source material, but has several links. I was looking at the "Complete Report" link, but it only has 72 pages. I have tried hard to find the reference. Can someone give me help - a direct reference maybe? ("12:21, 18 May 2008 KimDabelsteinPetersen (Talk | contribs) m (113,478 bytes) (Reverted to revision 213024196 by Kozuch; rv Chapter 9, page 666, left column, top of page.. using TW)" Thanks. Fireproeng (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It is in page 46 of the synthesis report (the 72-page one). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
And p666 of ch 9, as KDP said [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The references in the article should be made explicit and direct these sources. For example, the reference to p. 666 is not to the main report, but to the Working Group I Report, The Physical Science Basis.
  • I also suggest the article text be changed to reflect the nature of the rigorous treatment of uncertianty inherent in the these articles, written mainly for the professional scientific community. Specifically, the use of the phrase more than likely has a different connotation than as normally assigned by the general public, and in fact, does not appear in these reports.
Section 3.2.2 of the Synthesis Report:
"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea-surface temperatures. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones."
The the Treatment of uncertainty section of the Synthesis Report (p. 27):
"Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%."
Hence, "likely" in the reference means "between 67% and 89% certain". But even the use of two significant figures is incorrect within the intent of understanding the uncertinty behind these estimates. A better way of saying this is " with a chance of 3 in 4 of being correct ".
Also, The Physical Science Basis report citation does not state this claim with the same certainty. It states,
"The latitudinal pattern of change in land precipitation and observed increases in heavy precipitation over the 20th century appear to be consistent with the anticipated response to anthropogenic forcing. It is more likely than not that anthropogenic influence has contributed to increases in the frequency of the most intense tropical cyclones. Stronger attribution to anthropogenic factors is not possible at present because the observed increase in the proportion of such storms appears to be larger than suggested by either theoretical or modelling studies and because of inadequate process knowledge, insufficient understanding of natural variability, uncertainty in modelling intense cyclones and uncertainties in historical tropical cyclone data."
On pg. 712, section 9.5.3.5: "Thus, detection and attribution of observed changes in hurricane intensity or frequency due to external influences remains difficult because of deficiencies in theoretical understanding of tropical cyclones, their modelling and their long-term monitoring (e.g., Emanuel, 2005; Landsea, 2005; Pielke, 2005). These deficiencies preclude a stronger conclusion than an assessment that anthropogenic factors more likely than not have contributed to an increase in tropical cyclone intensity."
The INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, WMO UNEP, Page 4, Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties provides for an assignment of likely at best for the phrase more likely than not (which is itself not a part of thier "calibrated language").
In conclusion, the current text of the article gives the lay person the impression that this source concludes with certainty that human influences will result in more intense hurricanes, but this is only part of the story without an understanding of of the nature of the judgements. Fireproeng (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
WGI *is* the main report William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. Fireproeng (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Re the WGI: We don't know whether the data they used to arrive to the "likely" qualifier pointed to certainty nearer to 67% (2 out of 3) or 89% (8 out of 9), so saying 3 out of 4 would be factually incorrect. In any case, going into that sort of detail is too technical for the broad overview this article tries to provide, and we're better off using the "likely" we already have in the article's prose. We have the report referenced, and anyone looking for the precise wording can look at the reference. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Re the PSR: We can probably add a sentence saying "within the limitations of known and accurate historical records" or something of the sort, but much more than that would be excessive. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)