Talk:Cyclone

‹See TfM›

Extratropical cyclone and mid-latitude cyclone are one and the same

I've recommended those two pages be merged, and the two sections on this page should be as well... I'm guess the original author was confused between extratropical and subtropical... subtropical seems to be the one that was being thought of ("extra" means "not" in this context, i.e. "not tropical") --Famartin 03:46 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No word about Subtropical cyclone but Extratropical cyclone (Redirect) and Mid-latitude cyclone. --Saperaud 20:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Your point? -- Cyrius|✎ 23:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

No lexicon exists

Meteorologists of different nations employ different terms.

Americans and Canadians say "extratropical" cyclone, but Australians say "subtropical" cyclone.

The same is true of anticyclones.

There is no standard lexicon that is used world-wide. 71.240.101.189 12:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that subtropical and extratropical are the same? Because the subtropical cyclone article makes a distinction. Meanwhile extratropical cyclone used to redirect to mid-latitude cyclone, but this article makes a distinction between those two as well. I tried to work my way through the various articles to clean up the confusion, but I may have left things even more confused. Maybe a Category:Cyclones could be useful to help link all the different articles together. Jdorje 07:33, 1 December 2005

Ames

In Ames, Iowa, at Iowa State University, there is a mascot named Cy. He represents name of the teams which are composed of the students from the school...the Cyclones. Take note.

Flow direction

I think a cyclone is *always* anti-clockwise in the NH. http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cyc/def.rxml agrees. I agree that there may be exceptional (weak) low pressure areas with the opposite flow, but these aren't cyclones. William M. Connolley 20:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

If the cyclone is on the mesoscale beta or microscale like a tornado, coriolis doesn't apply, so it could rotate clockwise in the NH. Thegreatdr 22:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The cyclone as metaphor

I believe that the dress in the picture shown (assuming its attribution to Puck 1894 is correct) cannot have any reference to Dorothy since the Wonderful Wizard of Oz was not published until 1900.

As well, can someone verify whether the storm thing in Oz was a tornado, or a cyclone. Tornado has the same image, but says it is a tornado in the movie. It can only be one folks!

Well, a tornado is really an type of cyclone anyway - it's an intense mesoscale cyclonic vortex that touces down froum a cloudbase. Crimsone 13:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Major overhaul

I have just copyedited (removing redundancy), expanded, wikified and sourced much of the article. Copyediting of my copyediting would be useful if someone has time. lol. --Crimsone 16:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing: any references to the polar cyclone. Just a heads up. -Runningonbrains 00:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! :) I've now added the Polar cyclone subsection. There wasn't much material from the main article to be added into it though, so I've used what seemed appropriate --Crimsone 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the woman in the picture is the character of "Aunty Em" - supposedly the significance of the dress is in it's colours being those of the democratic party, and the fact that the dress she wears is identical to dorothy's, symbolising a collective utopia (an 1890s allegory of the benefits of socialism apparently). It doesn't really have much significance here though - it's only the cyclone element that's really relevant :) --Crimsone 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I see what you mean with the dates now! Well, I guess he could concievable have been writing the book at that time. If not, it is said in a few sources that he used well known political images of that time. Perhaps the explanation lies there somewhere. Anyhow, I'm going off on a bit of tangent now lol Crimsone 02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks almost B-class...keep up the good work! -Runningonbrains 12:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone vs. hurricane vs. typhooon

A user removed this entire paragraph during a "minor" October 24th edit with only a one-line explanation that it had nothing to do with the article. Below is the following paragraph in question.

The terms hurricane and typhoon are regionally specific names for a strong tropical cyclone—a non-frontal, synoptic-scale, warm-core low-pressure system with cyclonic surface wind circulation (Holland 1993). Specifically, hurricanes generally refer to such storms in the Atlantic Basin and the Pacific Ocean east of the International Date Line. Typhoons refer to the storms in the north Pacific west of the International Date Line. The typhoon term has also been applied to tropical cyclones in the South Pacific or Indian Ocean, but this is not considered correct usage today. [1]

I'd like to stress that regional terminology describing the cyclone is anything but irrelevant, and I strongly encourage discussion in the talk pages before making such huge edits without a prior consensus.

-Gordeonbleu 04:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that I've mistakenly marked a large(ish) edit as minor. The reason it was removed was because

1, It was in the lede, yet was anything but a summary of the article content as per WP:LEDE, and

2, It's about tropical cyclones specifically, not the general term cyclone. Items specific to tropical cyclones alone belong in the tropical cyclone article unless they need to be cited in another article as part of an explanation of a greater issue. There's really no need to recant everything about tropical cyclones here when the appropriate article can just be pointed to.

3, Just like most of this article, it had no sources anyway, and nobody had been forthcoming with them.

Incidentally, I did take this article from Start to 'B' Class in a single day (in between editing other articles, including one that's a current FAC), including the sourcing of an obscure statement about the Wizard of Oz involving about 3 hours of googling, and re-using the source in two other articles making the same unsourced statement, so I deserve at least a little bit of a break :) (said in jest, honestly - but when you've made a 1000 edits in a month, and most of them useful, mistakes are sometimes made with regards to the minor checkbox.). Crimsone 05:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Further to the above, The particular part of the tropical cyclone article dealing with this is Tropical_cyclone#Regional_terminology Crimsone 05:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Categorization of tornados?

Is a tornado a type of cyclone? It seems to be — the intro says it is, as do people in the discussion — but it doesn't show anywhere under "Categorisation," except the mention that "mesocyclones are directly associated to the formation of some tornadoes." If a tornado is a type of cyclone, it needs to be categorized (or "categorised" for the Britts in the audience!). !melquiades 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge (and that of wiki), tornadoes can be cyclonic and anti-cyclonic, and are simply mesocyclones that "touch down". I'll try and find the discussion you refer to, but it would be helpful if you would post the link. Crimsone 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tornadoes used to be referred to as cyclones until about a half century ago. Since they have an area of low pressure and high winds, they qualify. Just because a tornado's winds can blow inwards cyclonic or anticyclonic to the center does not exclude them from being cyclones. It just means they operate at a scale smaller (temporally and spacially) than the "Coriolis effect" can take place. Thegreatdr 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, Thegreatdr, but is a tornado a cyclone (in the sense of this article) in its own right, or is it part of the larger mesocyclone? Crimsone 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyclone as a term is used independent of size, origin, or its level in the atmosphere. TUTT cells (upper lows) can spawn tropical cyclones, but both systems are considered independent cyclones. We talk about mid and upper level cyclones spawning surface cyclones frequently in meteorology. Thegreatdr 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

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):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

At times the article borders on speaking in jargon, however it does a good job on explaining when it does. Good overview of the general topic. I was certainly intrigued. Keep up the good work and remember to keep the article accessible since it is a very general topic and frequently visited. Congratulations! Cronholm144 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anticyclones

Hi. I'd like to point out that the Great Red Spot and other Jovian Storms are anticylones and not cyclones. They should be moved to the anticyclone page and a page on extraterrestrial anticyclones should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.156 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Great Red Spot Reference

Added requested reference to the claim that the Great Red Spot was an anti-cyclone, and tidied up the language a touch. -- Filksinger (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong

In meteorology, a cyclone is an area of low atmospheric pressure characterized by inward spiraling winds that rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere of the Earth.

This applies to hurricanes, but not tornadoes. Cyclones below a certain radius (as a percentage of Earth's) will never be significantly affected by the Coriolis effect. --70.131.55.41 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your selected quote doesn't mention the coriolis effect, and does indeed apply to cyclonic tornadoes. What it doesn't refer to is the rare occurance of anti-cyclonic tornadoes. Crimsone (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cyclone

The term Cyclone is also used with a name or number to denote tropical storms that develop over the Indian Ocean and neighboring bodies of water. For example, Tropical Cyclone Tracy, which hit Australia, or the Bangladesh Cyclone of 1970 (Bhola Cyclone). I would rather not serve as an editor, but thought that I would contribute this information in the hopes that someone will add to this article.

13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)143.43.206.139 (talk) Linda Zellmer Government Publications & Data Librarian Western Illinois University Malpass Library 415 1 University Circle Macomb, IL 61455-1390

I think we have that covered by our tropical cyclone section of the article. Thank you for your input. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

GAR

As part of GA Sweeps, I have nominated this article at GAR to determine if consensus agrees this article meets the GA criteria. I'm concerned about the article's length and sourcing, and would appreciate feedback at the review. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Improvements are being made, and quickly. This article is now double its original size, and much better referenced than it once was. I'm quite surprised this passed GA last year...it's one of the first articles I submitted for GAC, and I've learned a bit more about the process and what makes an article good since then. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Expansion needed

The content and style of the article is fine as it is. The problem is that the only theory of cyclone development described is the Norwegian model, and it is not identified as such.

Section on cyclogenesis requires list of theories of formation and development: Quasi-geostrophic theory, baroclinic instability, Norwegian Model, Shapiro-Keyser Model, polar front cyclone, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfWW (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with in the main article cyclogenesis, which is linked from the corresponding section here. Such intricate detail is not appropriate for a subsection of a generic article on cyclones, when it can be linked in from an article specific to cyclogenesis. Crimsone (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand. But the Norwegian Model has generally been replaced by more modern dynamical generic models of cyclone development. These can be described in non-technical language.--ProfWW (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be some discussion of sea water cyclones (like South Adriatic Gyre, Lyon Gyre), either here or in another article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring of the article

In the polar vortex article, clearly it is an upper-level feature (illustrated by 500mb chart). The corresponding surface-based system is no different from extraopical low. I think it is fair to remove it from surface-based type. Also, I would suggest a further re-structuring of the article. The mesocyclones should not be co-listed with those synoptic scale cyclones. It should get its own section and perhaps some explanation of how some of the mesocyclones evolve into tornadoes. Also, the polar low article states that a number of them develop on horizontal temperature gradients through baroclinic instability. Even other polar lows with extensive cumulonimbus clouds are cold-core. I think there are enough grounds to put polar low as a subset of extratropical cyclones.165.125.180.10 (talk)