Talk:Inversion (meteorology)

Rename Article

I propose to rename this article "Inversion (meteorology)". Tmangray 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a good idea at all. T inv is the std name. William M. Connolley 07:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is entirely out of touch with the common usage. Few people including those in the field of meteorology use the full (yes, correct) term "temperature inversion". Indeed, you don't find the term "temperature inversion" in the NWS glossary at all, but you do find "inversion". By far, most people use the shorthand "inversion", and this would be most likely be what people on Wikipedia search for. They would come to the disambiguation page which lists temperature inversion on a page titled "inverse", then under the header "science", not meteorology. This is poor way to get people to an article. I notice that the standard format for many terms on Wikipedia that are shared by different fields is to specify the term followed by the name of the field in parentheses. I propose this for this article. Then, within the article, right in the first paragraph, bolded, the more exact usage "temperature inversion" can be mentioned. It can also be put on a redirect. BTW, the NWS glossary mentions that inversions of OTHER properties in the atmosphere exist, so the article can also be generalized. Tmangray 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

sleet and ice

Sleet and ice storms are, by definition, caused by inversions! There must be a warm layer above ground level to melt the precipitation, then a cold layer at the ground to freeze it. This is the definition of asn inversion. Why does this correct information keep getting removed!

(William M. Connolley 08:26, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)) It was me. The reason is, the stuff about "cause". The storm - the precipitation itself - is not caused by the inversion. All that does is transform it from liquid to solid. And anyway, sleet can be caused by a warm lower layer melting solid ppn from a higher layer.

Lochcarron pic

I added the Lochcarron pic, which I'm pretty sure is a temp. inversion; if anyone who knows more about weather than me wants to check it, that would be good. — Johan the Ghost _seance 14:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Agree with the merger, go for it! — Johan the Ghost _seance 14:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Rephrase - consequences

I hacked the consequences a bit. I believe that the main contribution to "stillness" is the lack of convection. This also affects buoyant plumes, which tend to entrain ambient air and hence stop being buoyant at some point (below the inversion top usually). In other words, stuff *isn't* trapped at the *top* of the inversion. Also, the clouds stuff: fog in an inversion is just low cloud; so inversions don't stop cloud. The new pic looks nice though William M. Connolley 20:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I was passing through Lochcarron and saw this, and my first thought was "Temperature inversion — Wikipedia!" Maybe I've been spending too much time here... ;-) It does look like a classic case, though (though I'm no expert). — Johan the Ghost _seance 10:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hot/Cold Air

"Hot air, however, rises (*). This is convection in which the warmer air rises up, to be replaced with cooler air which is then heated. It is this process that leads to cloud building, thermals, and other convection related atmospheric behaviour.

(*) The truth is that Colder air sinks and occupies the lower layers. It is the simple gravitational effect of a "heavier" (denser) mass winning over a lighter mass. Hot air has no intrinsic antigavitational properties"

Actually it does. Warm air doesn't "rise", except relatively speaking. It expands. Part of that expansion is upward, e.g. against the force of gravity. Tmangray 03:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This section seems inappropiate and not very encyclopedic. Maybe the second paragraph should just be removed?翔太 ^{「Shouta:talk」} 08:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Great Smog of 1952

Why not mention the Great Smog of 1952 in the consequences section? It was a temperature inversion with important consequences... Psyno 22:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Go for it. -Will Beback 02:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Psyno 22:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct to write "an increase in temperature with height"?

I believe it should be "an increase in potential temperature with height", as there can be an inversion even if the temperature decreases with height - if the decrease is smaller than that caused by adiabatic transfer of air upwards.

The diagram should have curves for both adiabatic and normal variation, and the article should discuss in terms of °C/km.

(I studied physics, but never meteorology.) OlavN 07:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mechanism for nighttime inversion

"An inversion is also produced whenever radiation from the surface of the earth exceeds the amount of radiation received from the sun ..." This makes no sense to me. Wouldn't excess radiation cause the air near the surface of the earth to be heated *more* relative to the air farther from the surface? (yielding the normal stratification) Seems to me a more likely explanation for inversion layers occurring at night is that the surface of the earth has a high heat capacity relative to the air and, when it's cold due to a lack of solar energy, it quickly absorbs the excess heat typically found in the lower layer of air.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)