Talk:Tropical cyclone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 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 so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 1, 2009.

Small error[edit]

Diagram of a Northern hemisphere hurricane notes the rotation as "clockwise" while the arrow is a counter clockwise rotation. Or am I misunderstanding it? Nemacol (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


Previous poster is correct, in the Northern Hemisphere a low pressure area spins counterclockwise, as the arrow shows but the label is wrong in the diagram: "Diagram of a Northern hemisphere hurricane". 2601:342:0:E3D0:5186:2D79:ECF3:236D (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I wonder...[edit]

"Scientists estimate that a tropical cyclone releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200 exajoules (1018 J) per day,[24] equivalent to about 1 PW (1015 watt). This rate of energy release is equivalent to 70 times the world energy consumption of humans and 200 times the worldwide electrical generating capacity, or to exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes."

That said, I wonder what the world would be like if humanity were able to harvest energy from tropical cyclone and use it for electricity...

ScamsAreHorrible172 (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

World energy consumption is about
140 PWh annually so relations are
wrong maybe also 1 PW guessing.
Important how to stopp huricanes
should stand in WP now at actual hurricane harvey article main referenced
see entry upon for a full clearing. Informing TRUMP In Texas now !— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.251 (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Useless Article[edit]

Looking for the US definition of a "Tropical Storm". I don't want to know about the science or history or anything else. Just the definition of "Tropical Storm". Not here. Wasted my time, again. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

see the section: Tropical cyclone#Tropical storm --Vsmith (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
What you're looking for is a Dictionary then. You've come to an Encyclopedia. 152.121.18.253 (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
He (original poster) is correct, Tropical Storm should be referred to in this article, it is basic to the science of hurricanes. This article is poorly written on so many levels. Even someone who generally understands hurricanes can not read this article and have it make sense, it is ambiguous and contradictory. I have to agree that this is a useless article and should be completely rewritten by someone who both understands the science and can present and write clearly, intelligently, and understandably. It is lacking on both counts. 2601:342:0:E3D0:D70:3127:3F15:744A (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
"Tropical storm" is mentioned 31 times so I don't understand how it's lacking. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone#Climate change[edit]

  • "The most recent draft of a sweeping climate science report pulled together by 13 federal agencies as part of the National Climate Assessment suggested that the science linking hurricanes to climate change was still emerging. Looking back through the history of storms, 'the trend signal has not yet had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes,' the report states." --Source: The New York Times.[[1]
  • "According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, "The total number of hurricanes and the number reaching the United States do not indicate a clear overall trend since 1878" and "changes in observation methods over time make it difficult to know whether tropical storm activity has actually shown an increase over time." --Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency.[2]
  • "Detection and attribution of past changes in tropical cyclone (TC) behavior remaim a challenge ... there is still low confidence that any reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) increases in TC are robust... This is not meant to imply that no such increases in TC activity have occurred, but rather that the data are not of a high enough quality to determine this with much confidence. Furthermore, it has been argued that within the period of highest data quality (since around 1980) the globally observed changes in the environment would not necessarily support a detectable trend of tropical cyclone intensity (Kossin et al. 2013). That is, the trend signal has not had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes." --Source: Draft National Climate Assessment (section 9.2).[the Draft National Climate Assessment
  • "Observed regional climate variability comprises a number of factors, both natural and anthropogenic, and the response of tropical cyclones to each factor is not yet well understood. Long-term trends in tropical climate due to increasing greenhouse gas can be regionally dominated by shorter-term decadal variability forced by both internal and external factors such as changes in natural and anthropogenic aerosol concentrations ... In concert with these natural and anthropogenic external forcings, internal variability can play a substantial, and possibly dominant, role in regional decadal variability. Thus, when interpreting the global and regional changes in tropical cyclone intensity shown in the present work, it is clear that framing the changes only in terms of linear trends forced by increasing well-mixed greenhouse gasses is most likely not adequate to provide a complete picture of the potential anthropogenic contributions to the observed changes." --Source: Trend Analysis with a New Global Record of Tropical Cyclone Intensity, NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina, and Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin[3]
  • "It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate)." --Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory[4]
  • "The term climate change detection as used in this abstract refers to a change which is anthropogenic in origin and is sufficiently large that the signal clearly rises above the background “noise” of natural climate variability (with the “noise” produced by internal climate variability, volcanic forcing, solar variability, and other natural forcings). As noted in IPCC AR42, the rise of global mean temperatures over the past half century is an example of a detectable climate change; in that case IPCC concluded that most the change was very likely attributable to human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
  • In the case of tropical cyclones, the WMO team concluded that it was uncertain whether any changes in past tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the levels due to natural climate variability. While some long (century scale) records of both Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts show significant rising trends, further studies have pointed to potential problems (e.g., likely missing storms) in these data sets due to the limited density of ship traffic in the pre-satellite era. After adjusting for such changes in observing capabilities for non-landfalling storms, one study3 found that the rising trend in tropical storm counts was no longer statistically significant. Another study4 noted that almost the entire trend in tropical storm counts was due to a trend in short-duration (less than two days) storms, a feature of the data which those authors interpreted as likely due in large part to changes in observing capabilities.
  • A global analysis of tropical cyclone intensity trends over 1981-2006 found increases in the intensities of the strongest tropical cyclones, with the most significant changes in the Atlantic basin5. However, the short time period of this dataset, together with the lack of “Control run” estimates of internal climate variability of TC intensities, precludes a climate change detection at this point." --Source: Article in Nature Geoscience[5]
  • "A satisfactory answer to the question of what sets the annual global rate of tropical cyclone formation, roughly 80 per year, has thus far evaded climate scientists. Several empirical relationships have been derived to relate tropical cyclone formation to large-scale climate variables, such as genesis potential indices, but there is to date no established theory relating tropical cyclone formation rate to climate." -Source: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science[6]

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed de-merge of rapid deepening/intensification[edit]

This seems to have been merged into this page circa 2015, and the relevant defined term lost from the page in the meantime, including the previous criteria for it (as far as my cursory search found). I propose de-merging and recreating the page to maintain this NHC defined term on Wikipedia. I believe notable instances should be removed and a link to List of the most intense tropical cyclones be put in place instead. Yes, I know such a page would not make a long and detailed encyclopedic article, but it would host an easy to find link to the definition, and depending upon literature could have potential to be expanded further (Explosive cyclogenesis is in effect a similar definition article at heart).Lacunae (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of "demerging," I don't even see any relevant information on rapid intensification at all anymore. The redirect leads nowhere now. At some point, someone purged the information from the page. Information about rapid deepening/intensification should be readded. Master of Time (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
As the information has been removed from this article, I went ahead and restored Rapid deepening to the version before it was merged. Titoxd(?!?) 19:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Rapid deepening which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017[edit]

Description of aircraft indicates "Hurricane Hunter" - WP-3D Orion used to go into the eye of a hurricane for data collection and measurements purposes. It should read WP-3D Orion is used; otherwise the description is amibguous (was used once but isn't any more or is still used) OldManwoodian (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Error on first illustration[edit]

The first picture titled Diagram of a Northern hemisphere hurricane has a major error in the text. It should be labeled as counter clockwise rotation, as the red arrow shows, not clockwise rotation as is labeled.2601:342:0:E3D0:D70:3127:3F15:744A (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The contributor is active and has been notified. The text layer seems to be editable, so it should be a simple fix, with luck taken care of shortly. P Aculeius (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Article is ambiguous, not understandlable, poorly written.[edit]

Thia article is so badly written it is impossible to understand how a hurricane works by reading this article. No clear explanation is presented, entire article is ambiguous and poorly worded. Does air flow up or down in the eye? Or both? And if both then where? Yes I know how it works, the writer of this article does not understand how a hurricane works so he/she cannot present it understandably. Have someone with a stronger familiarity of the English/American language rewrite this otherwise useless article. Not to mention that diagrams are wrong. Ugh.2601:342:0:E3D0:D70:3127:3F15:744A (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If you think that sections of the article could be more clearly written or presented, you're quite welcome to improve them yourself. It's hard to respond to vague generalities about the entire article, but it doesn't have a single author; like most widely-read articles it's the product of many collaborators constantly working to improve it over the course of several years. "How a hurricane 'works'" is a complex process, and naturally explaining it takes some space. Personally I find the article perfectly readable, if a bit lengthy. There's a mislabeled diagram, which was correctly labeled in an earlier version; the author of the diagram has been notified and will probably fix it in the next few days. That doesn't make the article useless. If you think you can reword the article in a way that will improve it, go ahead. That's how Wikipedia works. If other editors agree that it's an improvement, you'll have contributed helpfully. If not, the changes are easily modified or reverted. Either way, working to improve the article is much more helpful both to Wikipedia and to its readers than simply complaining about it. P Aculeius (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)