This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Two points:
jheijmans, Friday, June 28, 2002
In the article it says the damage of XYZ was ?? billion. Billion in American or in British English? The problem is that the SI namings should be used, but it is not clear which one was actually used!
Some weblinks have died since they have been posted. Excerpts will be available in Talk:Tropical cyclone/Etymology.
"Typhoon" is an unusual word, in that it has two possible reasonable etymologies, from rather distinct linguistic sources: the Chinese tai-fung meaning "great wind" and the associated Japanese dai-fûn or tai-fûn; and the Greek name Typhon, the name of a monster associated with the wind. In fact, the English word comes first from the Greek via the Arabic tufân -- the Chinese is a fortuitous false cognate.
Someone added the sentence
Could someone explain why the reversed-syllable form supports the Chinese origin? Zack 18:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since tropical cyclones are very frequent in Chinese coastal areas and completely nonexistent in mediterranean waters, it can be argued that it is much more likely to be a word of Chinese origin than of Greek origin. The similar word appearing in a number of European languages (English, Portugese, Greek), would support a single source which would logically be from a language in an area where tropical cyclones are part of life - like China. It is also supported by the fact that the name "Typhoon" is only used for tropical cyclones in the Western Pacific. English and Portugese have sailed these areas since the 15th century and may have brought the word to their respective languages. Malotaux 15:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 22:23, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) This article has been merged with hurricane (by me). Because they are different names for the same thing. I don't think I lost any info along the way. Save 1 was the first merge. I'm now going to eliminate some redundant stuff.
BTW, I don't know what to do about the other-languages stuff. There are now de: links to typhoon and hurricane, and the others are now a mixture. Well, someone who speaks those languages will have to do it.
Location: "...such cyclones almost never form within 10 degrees of the equator (where the Coriolis effect is weakest). However it is possible for tropical cyclones to form within this boundary if another source of initial rotation is provided. These conditions are extremely rare and such storms are believed to form at a rate of less than one a century." Should this be edited to include Hurricane Ivan, which became a hurricane at 9.9 N?
vaeiou, Tuesday, September 7, 2004
In the Effects section, we say that a mature cyclone can release heat at a rate of 2*10^19 watts, and that this is 200 times world electrical generating capacity. Something must be wrong with one of those numbers. If world electrical generating capacity were the implied 10^17 watts, that would be 10^8 gigawatts. In another article we say that US generating capacity is something like 600 gigawatts. The US can't account for less than 1/10,000 of the world's electric capacity, can it?
Let's find out the real numbers and put them in, if possible. I suspect the number that is wrong is the 200.
"Occasionally, somebody suggests detonating a nuclear weapon to shatter a storm.
"Researchers say hurricanes would dwarf such measures. For example, Hurricane Rita measures about 400 miles across.
"According to the center for atmospheric research, the heat energy released by a hurricane equals 50 to 200 trillion watts or about the same amount of energy released by exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes."
See http://www.noaa.gov/questions/question_082900.html
Now considering that this is the "Effects" section of our article, I would be inclined to attach more importance to the NOAA estimate of kinetic energy, which does the actual work/damage, rather than total heat release, whose effects are more related to the maintenance of the beast. The kinetic energy dissipation rate given for a typical hurricane is in the order or 1.5 x 1012 watts. I don't have a figure for world wide electricity consumption, but frankly I think the article can do without that tidbit. Girouette 01:45, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
When did meteorologists (or scientists, or philosophers) first notice the cyclone nature of these storms? How has our knowledge of tropical cyclones changed over time? I'm particularly curious about early changes in knowledge. Obviously with the advent of satellite photography great strides must have been made in understanding... 12.7.173.34 04:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am not a historian, but I am a meteorologist, so I will venture some thoughts. Cyclones were probably perceived as rotating entities some time before the dynamics were understood. A clever observer with a wind vane and good record-keeping may have been able to surmise the existence of cyclones, by analysing over some months or years the turning of the wind before, during and after bad weather. Googling along those lines, it seems one Herr Professor Dove did just that around 1827, according to this :
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/history/AHistoryofScienceVolumeIII/chap41.html
So Professor Dove looks to have claim to the discovery of cyclones.
Girouette 02:25, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
1827, wow, that is fairly recently. I look forward to reading more about this some day. Perhaps you (or even I <gasp>) will reseearch the topic and write an article some day. Thanks for the information! --
Funkyj 07:37, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
In 1743 Ben Franklin was collecting information on an eclipse of the moon, which was obscured in Philadelphia. It was a strong northeaster, but he was surprised that in Boston the storn did not begin until the next day and the eclipse was visible. He surmised that the winds around the storm were in a cyclonic flow, and that despite the northeast winds, the storm had originated to the south and southwest.
I always thought that "willy willy" refers to a sort of small tornado-ey thing that you get out in the desert, caused by the air being heated by the ground.
BTW: aboriginal languages seem to use word doubling like this to create proper names. Many place names in Australia are like this (Wagga Wagga, Gin Gin).
Should reference be made to the possible role of global warming? A recent article, Frances, Ivan part of record-setting period for storms http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/politics/9621908.htm states
The article includes several excellent references to online research tools, including
Please do not put personal statements of scientists or others on the page unless they are published in a first class scientific journal. I removed
A full and more balanced citation would be:
But again: We should stick to scientific publications here. There are too many people and interests trying to impose their personal view on the public.
For the same reason I am not sure how credible the "U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" is: Until this year the US government denied that such a thing as global warming even exists. No wonder that they deny it plays a role in more frequent/fierce hurricanes. [User:MH|MH]] 09:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering if anyone here thinks that the NOAA has falsified data. I am asking that question in regards to the comment above. The following BBC article includes NOAA charts: [3] Whether or not the NOAA disputes "global warming" shouldn't have anything to do with empirical evidence, unless that evidence is manipulated. According to the BBC charts, water surface temperature fluctuates normally and the intensity of storms shows no increased tendencies at all. Have any of the pro GW scientists considered the effects of volcanic or solar influences on hurricane activity? This whole debate about GW and hurricanes seems blown out proportion and is only being used as a political instrument. The Earth and its weather patterns have changed radically over the millenia. Would an Earth without the influence of humans be a kind of static Garden of Eden? Whyerd 08:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
moved from the Village pump
Hurricanes on the other side of North and South America. It's like they don't exist. And they seems rather large as well. Just my two cents.
End moved discussion
Who or what group of people are responsible for naming hurricanes etc.? Is there already a long list to choose from and does it have to be 3 female names then a male name and back to female names again? Thanks.
Is the reason it is notable due to the low latitude Category 4 strength or the death toll? If the former, it should probably be rewritten to indicate the 135 mph wasn't the storm peak. If it's the death toll, we'll probably need to make room for Jeanne (as well as clean the Ivan entry up). -- Xylaan 22:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 13:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Pollinator added that cyclones had an important met function. This seems rather dubious... I doubt they are a significant component of the heat budget in those regions. Most of the time, there aren't any, anyway, which sets some limit.
There was an article about stopping or diverting hurricanes in sci am this month. Is there any writing abouth is on wikipedia? I think there should be. BrokenSegue 04:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've done some work on this section, but needs definite fact checking. For example, what's the most intense storm anywhere? Was it Gilbert?
On another note, I've merged/redirected all relevant storms to here. Extratropical and subtropical still have their own articles, as well they should. (For a while, I had extratropical redirect here, but it does deserve its own section I think).
-- Golbez 01:59, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
The FAC nomination failed, although it had a decent amount of support.
I'm not happy with the article yet, so I don't feel bad about that. -- Cyrius| ✎ 06:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I didn't really understand that myself. The wandering part is what bothers me, and I'm surprised there were no complaints about that. Right now I'm considering the possibility that a "Atlantic hurricane" article may be needed to separate out some of the basin-specific information, leaving tropical cyclone for general meteorological discussion. Similar articles could be written for other basins. -- Cyrius| ✎ 19:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Excellent article guys. Okiedokie 15:07, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's necessary to mention the Chinese ancestry of "typhoon" without mentioning where all the other words came from (like Hurricane). Furthermore, dictionary.com says the word arose independently in Greek and Chinese. See: [8] -- Golbez 17:07, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
I came here for a simple explanation of why a TC tends to follow a particular curved track from the latitudes within which it develops. It tends to move poleward after some wandering in its formation latitude. Firstly, it moves westward (either south west in the southern hemisphere or northwest in the northern) then straight polar and then takes on a more easterly heading (again SE or NE depending on hemisphere) as it speeds up and develops further. Why? Also, why does it sometimes vary from this path? In other words, what are the steering forces? This whole process is not even mentioned in the article as far as I can see. I don't know the answers so I am not going to even attempt to document it. Could some expert please address this? -- CloudSurfer 19:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Once the following three complains are dealt with, I think it'll be time to re-nominate for FAC. -- Golbez 08:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
This article is really good so far! I plan to work on it a little at a time over the next few weeks, especially movement, terminology, and naming. Also, IMO some reorganizing of the article would help. I'll give this a shot later today. Please help fix the result if it seems unclear.
The notable storm section looks excellent to me right now. The Tip/Tracy graphic's awesome. Kitesailor 13:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
The article focuses too much on naming in the N. Atlantic. This brings up a questions: Did the rest of the world not name cyclones in this fashion until after NOAA led the way? If they did, we need that info. -- Golbez 08:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'll look into this. Kitesailor 13:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
At present, the article mentions nothing about WHY hurricanes move the way they do. Why does it go this way? And not that way? What makes them difficult to predict sometimes? And a mention or article needs to be made on the Fujiwhara effect, the cyclonic motion that two storms take around each other (that is, when two hurricanes are near each other, they will rotate around a certain "center of mass"). This can't be mentioned without other movement info. -- Golbez 08:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I plan to somehow make a map of the particular basins. -- Golbez 08:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
That would be really helpful. I wonder if the tracking maps provided by NOAA could be a starting point (they're fair game, right?), with the basins circled or shaded and labeled. I don't have enough Photoshop know-how at the moment to do that, unfortunately. Kitesailor 13:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
There are only few and confusing sentences about the fate of tropical cyclones when they becom extratropical etc. There are too many (and poorly written) articles that these sections link to. Extratropical cyclones, weather front, frontal cyclone, European windstorm: all of this needs a major cleanup.
http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/pubs/tcguide/ch2/ch2_5.htm#2.5%20EXTRATROPICAL%20TRANSITION has some related information.
If anyone here cares, I have a lot of satellite photos of tropical cyclones. I've got all but five of the US landfalling hurricanes since 1965. I also have satellite photos of 230 out of 303 tropical cyclones that have formed since 1977. If you're counting, that means that I lack just 73 out of the 303 storms that formed during the past 28 years. So if you need a satellite photo of a storm since 1977 or a US landfalling hurricane since 1965, either I have it, or it probably doesn't exist.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 8 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)