Talk:Orographic lift

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV wording[edit]

Orographic Lift is demonstrated in many places in the world, but few examples are as clear as those in the United States

This is a typically chauvinistic statement by an American. On the eastern seaboard of Australia it's just as obviously demonstrated, and probably on the western side too. In fact I'd say that almost anywhere that a large ocean meets land shows this just as "clearly". Ireland for example. This sentence is POV and ignorant. Let's come up with something a bit more universal, please. Graham 09:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't write the original, but did revise it today. Check it and see if it works for you. Next time you're welcome to simply change it yourself; we all have some POV but Wikipedia allows each of us to propose a better wording. With luck we'll reach a better concensus summary than any of us individually can write. Williamborg 21:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Proposal[edit]

Merge proposed by User:Beland on 18:24, 4 March 2006:

  • Oppose I oppose merging Rain Shadow into this article -- it provides a quick lay summary that would be lost among the more technical language here. Tlogmer 07:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose merging these articles too because people looking specifically for rain shadows couldn't care less about orographic lift, they want to read about rain shadows. User: 01:39, 18 May 2006
  • Merge I agree that rainshadow should be merged into the orographic lift article. The article clearly introduces the concept--why not put a name to it. User:Jussslic 22:03, 18 May 2006
  • Oppose—Some (quite a few) thoughts follow:
    • Ditto Tlogmer & User:
    • Although the process of obtaining Administrator status on the Wikipedia encourages people to propose mergers (for some strange reason it is one of the criteria for being an Admin) mergers are not inherently good.
    • When in doubt, even slight doubt, the article should simply be marked stub and people should be encouraged to expand it. Mergers should occur if and only if the two pages truly cover precisely the same topic by parallel names.
    • In this example there is causality: orographic lifting frequently results in rainshadowing. But the topics really are not the same → orographic lifting is usually the cause → rain shadowing is usually the effect. However terrain-forced flow can also caused rain shadowing without orographic lifting → so the combination of the two articles is at best misleading and at worst incorrect.
    • In spite of those who would maintain that Wikipedia is not a relational database, in fact that is precisely what Wikipedia is, a relational database. As a consequence, one of the strengths of the Wikipedia is that it doesn't have to have boringly long, obtuse articles. They can be short and punchy with links to other topics that might be of interest to only a subset of us. Yes, that makes Wikipedia weird when compared to the Encyclopædia Britannica; but when I want to use the Encyclopædia Britannica, I pull down my copy of Encyclopædia Britannica. And I can assure you it does not go where the Wikipedia can take you!
    • Keep Wikipedia Weird. Eschew needless mergers. Instead add new material! Williamborg 02:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Williamborg's reasoning, particularly his note on the causality between orographic lift and rain shadowing. --Kaze0010 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of further discussion, I will remove the merge tag tonight. Williamborg (Bill) 03:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancies between the description of Wavecloudsduval.jpg used on this page and on other pages[edit]

I've compiled a short list of discrepancies about this image at Image_talk:Wavecloudsduval.jpg. If someone really knows what this is, could you please fix the ambiguity and discrepancies between the pages? (I'd consider the discussion on the image's talk page to be the appropriate primary discussion place for this issue.) --Kaze0010 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Caption:A view of the Front Wall of the Rockies capped by a foehn wall.[edit]

May I suggest this be changed to the Front Range of the Rockies. It's a minor point but I was confused with the location of the Front Wall until I noticed the credit giving the photographers location when the photo was taken. Front Range is the commonly accepted description.

Machu Picchu Sunset in Peru[edit]

Peru Machu Picchu Sunrise.jpg

Someone added and then removed the the image of Machu Picchu shown here to the article. It is an intersing formation: Whitehead's Mountain Meteorology does not identify what it is. Any experts out there? Williamborg (Bill) 03:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Lee waves[edit]

I think the section on atmospheric waves should merged with Lee waves. I would prefer that the term 'orographic lift' is confined to the rising air in front of a slope. Does anyone disagree? JMcC (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Change of mind. The section should be called "Associated clouds" and link added to lee waves. JMcC (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


A striking example of a cap cloud may be found at —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)