Talk:Rain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleRain has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 1, 2010Good article nomineeListed
February 19, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Portland rainfall inacurate[edit]

Portland's rainfall is 35 inches per year, not 45 as the editor suggests —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesj2 (talkcontribs) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


Major expansion[edit]

This article was missing a lot of information, and some information is still needed. Much has been added and reorganized. After several more references are added, the info in the lead is reconciled with the article below, and the rainfall climatology information by continent is fairly complete we can think about GANing it. Let me know if anything else significant is missing from this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Down to 4 paragraphs needing references. Think all the necessary content is already here. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have shuffled the sections a bit, but I did not remove or alter any information. I think that the article has a better flow this way. Nergaal (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Global precipitation trend - up or flat?[edit]

The following statements in the "Human Influence" section seem to be contradictory: "Increasing temperatures tend to increase evaporation which leads to more precipitation. As average global temperatures have risen, average global precipitation has also increased." "Globally there has been no statistically significant overall trend in precipitation over the past century..."

I plead utter ignorance as to which is correct. Both statements come from reference [56], viz. EPA citing IPCC FAR WG1. But that doesn't (in my mind, at least) mitigate the apparent contradiction.

Anyone more knowledgeable who knows of a reliable source to back up one or the other statement? Or reconcile the two?

Thanks. LijeBailey (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a surprise. A consensus document has contradictions. In this case, that is a real problem. I made an effort to resolve the situation. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Inches?[edit]

How is it determined how many inches of rain is going to fall/has fallen? Inches over what measurement of land? If someone knows the answer to this maybe it should be on the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.179.228 (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the article (a bit late, I know) to hopefully clear this up some... see the measurement section. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 09:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Deserts inaccuracy/vandalism[edit]

In the section under Deserts, someone has listed the Willamette Valley of Oregon as one of four drier regions of the United States. It fact it is one of the wettest; the rainfall map linking from their reference will attest to that. Or ask anyone who lives here; June has already given us 2.81" in 18 days so far. {{editsemiprotected}}

159.121.4.169 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Causes[edit]

All (or very nearly all) of the "causes" section here is identical to that in Precipitation (meteorology) and that I think is bad. Since the causes stuff here isn't rain-specifc (same applies to snow) I think it is better in ppn. so the stuff here should be removed; and we should just link across William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wettest places[edit]

"Cherrapunji situated on the southern slopes of the Eastern Himalaya in Shillong, India is one of the wettest places on Earth, with an average annual rainfall of 11,430 mm (450 in). "

I don't know what those mountains are called where Cherrapunji is, but it is NOT the Eastern Himalaya.Eregli bob (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the section could do with bullet points for each of the places, rather than lumping them together in one paragraph (I don't know how to do them myself though).

¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltingpot (talkcontribs) 17:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph form is usually preferred to inline lists. In any event, the table seems to accomplish much the same thing that a bullet list would, doesn't it? Rivertorch (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The wettest places is not very good. As long as we are talking about estimates (cause people dont live in the most extreme places to run a weather station). Ålfotbreen in Norway has around 5,600 mm a year. Source http://www.ub.uib.no/elpub/2005/h/406004/Hovedoppgave.pdf. This is probably a wetter place than the one in Montenegro. Lolper11 (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The wettest places section of this article should be an independent entry. There is a wealth of information regarding wettest places on each continent, causes of extreme rainfall, dispute between wettest locations, and potential undiscovered wettest locations. More than enough to create a standalone article.

Requesting permission to create an independent article of Earth's wettest places -Ivvavik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivvavik (talkcontribs) 02:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Typo?[edit]

I think this is merely a typo, but I have no idea how it should read.

There is a statement in the article:

"Over the contiguous United States, total annual precipitation increased at an average rate of 6.1 percent per century since 1900"

There has only been one century since 1900.

-john

Science News resource "Rain tips balance between forest and savanna: Amount of tree cover can shift suddenly and abruptly"[edit]

Also see Tipping point. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See Trees. 99.19.43.8 (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Poor Description of Why Rain Falls[edit]

This article gives the appearance of being "scientific" and well-written, but it actually does not describe clearly why rain falls. (P.S. - No, it does *not.* Re-read the article *carefully* and you'll see what I mean.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.248.241 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. The article says:

Coalescence occurs when water droplets fuse to create larger water droplets, or when water droplets freeze onto an ice crystal, which is known as the Bergeron process. Air resistance typically causes the water droplets in a cloud to remain stationary. When air turbulence occurs, water droplets collide, producing larger droplets. As these larger water droplets descend, coalescence continues, so that drops become heavy enough to overcome air resistance and fall as rain.

The only thing missing there, as far as I can see, is a mention of gravity, which hardly seems needed. Rivertorch (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Coalescence is a fusing of material - for example, water drops. Therefore the first statement says "Coalescence occurs when coalescence occurs." And it's not an explanation of why that happens, it just uses a "big word" to sound more fancy. I'll give you the second one, about the "Bergeron process." It then states that air droplets "descend" as if stating that fact is an explanation. *Why* do they descend? Thermal air currents? Gravity? (etc.) Obviously a threshold is reached where gravity is overcome - but *why* is that threshold reached? What factors are necessary to overcome it? Does it always happen at the same altitude and temperature? Trust me, if you read this article *very* very carefully, you will see that there is hardly any explanation given for rain falling at *all.* It just *appears* to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.248.241 (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If I'm reading you correctly, you're looking for a much greater level of detail about the formation of raindrops and the factors that determine the threshold of their precipitation. I'm not sure whether you have a specific idea for achieving that in the article or are just curious. If the latter, tell you what—since this topic is well outside my field of expertise and no one else has responded, why don't you post something at the Reference Desk? (Btw, you can indent your replies by various degrees by adding one or more colons at the beginning of each paragraph. See Help:Talk#Indentation.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If that is what is asked for, the user could create a new article called raindrop to provide the additional level of detail. We have good, detailed articles like that for snowflake and hail. It could be a subarticle to both drop and rain. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was just curious. I'll try to contact the reference desk to ask about it tomorrow. I don't really have the expertise or the time to write about it myself. Thanks for taking the time to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.248.241 (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a rain and raindrop article. The problem with wanting to know how "rain" forms is apparent from reading the article; there are dozens of separate phenomena which can work alone or in concert to form rain. If we have a raindrop article, we can have all the "why" here, and the "what" there. I may start it tomorrow. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 09:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

CULTURE[edit]

Good now I have your attention. now I am wondering if there are any cultural aspects of rain, I am pretty sure there are; its just that I don't know how to cite sources.--Commander v99 (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources. You don't have to SHOUT to get your fellow Wikipedians' attention, btw. Rivertorch (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Commonly used categories?[edit]

E.g., the widely-used "www.weather.com" refers to "Light Rain," then "Showers." What do these mean? Which is heavier, longer, etc.? Is there a common taxonomy that can be listed in a table, or some discussion of the various phrases used? Thanks! Benefac (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Really depends from country to country and even between organisations (eg. Bureau of Meteorology's Glossary and Weather Words). Bidgee (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Phantom Rain"? Wikipedia has an article about VIRGA and for consistencies sake I suggest at least mentioning here that "Phantom Rain" is called VIRGA. GodsGoodCountry (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Rate?[edit]

In the sentence "total annual precipitation increased at an average rate of 6.1 percent since 1900", should this perhaps read instead "total annual precipitation has increased by 6.1 percent since 1900"? I can't think of a meaning for this sentence where either "average" or "rate" makes sense. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hyetograph[edit]

Can a link be added to Hyetograph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.172.122 (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"euphemisms" -->"slang expressions"[edit]

several informal synonyms for violent rain are listed. These are denoted "euphemisms" I think a more accurate characterization would be "slang expressions" The expressions quoted don't fit the definition of a euphemism.Imlikewhoa (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

include volume fraction in "intensity" section[edit]

In the "intensity" section after the listing of light, moderate, heavy, violent categories, I suggest to add

In violent (50mm/hour) rain with large (5mm) raindrops, about 3 parts per million of the air volume (or 3 parts per thousand of its mass) is liquid water.


justification:

the volume fraction is the ratio of the rain intensity (50mm/(24*60 sec) or 34 x 10^-6 meters/sec) to the raindrop velocity. elsewhere in the article 5 mm raindrops are said to fall at about 10 meters/sec. The volume fraction is thus (34/10) x 10^-6 . Imlikewhoa (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I am linking in from a different perspective, Rain gutter. Rainfall intensity is measures in l/s/m² in SI units? I am particularly interested in 0.0208 l/s/m² used as a rule of thumb in the building industry. This section doesn't provide an easy link. Any thoughts, please ping me. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The SI unit for l/s/m² is 0.01m3/s. However 1l/s/m² is usually expressed as a rainfall of 1mm in 1second; a very heavy rainfall event! Thus 0.0208 l/s/m² = 0.0208mm of rainfall per second which equates to about 54mm of rain per hour- a very heavy rainfall event. Hope my maths is correct !  Velella  Velella Talk   10:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

snow[edit]

snow is happens when the temperature is under 32. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.81.181 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No. Snow may occur when the tempertaure drops below 1 degree C (Centrigrade is used by all meterologists, even in the US) but equally super-cooled water may fall as rain at this temperature as may hail. However, much of the time when the temperatuer is below freezing, there are clear skies and no preciptation occurs at all.  Velella  Velella Talk   01:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Math error in intensity section[edit]

Hello,

I am mostly a reader and am not a confirmed user, but I noticed a fairly egregious mathematical misconception in the category "measurement" --> "intensity". A storm (or any event) that has a one percent chance of occurring in a year does not have a fifty percent chance of occurring in 100 years. If it did, it would also follow that the storm had a 100% probability of occurring in 100 years (which probability should not guarantee) and a 150% chance of occurring in 150 years (which doesn't make sense).

This issue is addressed in the probability section of the 100 year flood page, which is linked to at the top of the aforementioned subsection. That page cites this link for support "http://www.floods.org/ace-files/documentlibrary/Publications/asfpmpubs-techrep7_2015.pdf"

It should be edited to say that this is a common misconception and that a 1 in 100 year storm has about a one percent chance of occurring each year, but by independence of probability, one or more such storms actually have about a 63% chance of occurring in 100 years.

Brohring (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Rain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019[edit]

Change: Rainfall intensity is classified according to the rate of precipitation, which depends on the considered time:[105]

to: Rainfall intensity is classified according to the rate of precipitation, which depends on the considered time[105]. The following categories have been suggested [original reference is missing]:

Reason: Section 4.3 Intensity details important categories for rainfall rates. However, none of the references [105], [106], [107] and [108] explain the mentioned categories. The reference [106] is pointed at for the categories Moderate rain and Heavy rain, but the source AMS fail to provide any references to its categories. Mjunkov (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: didn't like using the word "suggested". Both source 106 (American Meteorological Society) and 107 (Met Office) are reliable sources, so this seems to be just a case of different countries using different standards. Roadguy2 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)