Talk:Tropical cyclone/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Add section on terminology?

I propose to add a short section on terminology rather than having this footnote which is important but rather hidden: "# Depending on its location and strength, a tropical cyclone is referred to by different names, including hurricane (/ˈhʌrɪkən, -keɪn/), typhoon (/taɪˈfuːn/), tropical storm, cyclonic storm, tropical depression, or simply cyclone.^{[citation needed]}" EMsmile (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@EMsmile: The section you want to add is already in the article under classifications. It probably needs a bit of work though.Jason Rees (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this to me, Jason Rees. As an interested reader (but uninvolved in editing this article so far), here are some suggestions for pondering:

• Move the section 5 on Classification up towards the start of the article. (I've done this now on 21 June 22 EMsmile (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC))
• Rename the section called "background" to what it really is about. What is it about? It starts off with a sentence that I would move to terminology. Then it talks about historical aspects - perhaps move them into a section called "history" towards the end? Why would an article like this even need a section called "background"?
• That footnote that I mentioned above about terminology should be elevated to become part of the first paragraph of the lead. I think it's so important that it should be in the lead and in the main text and not hidden in a footnote that is easy to overlook, particular on mobile devices. (I've done this now on 21 June 22 EMsmile (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC))
• The section heading "climatology and records" is unclear in the TOC: With all the other section headings, I kind of know what to expect (I like the standard section headings so far used in the article like Types, Impacts, Responses...). A section heading called "climatology and records", with a sub-heading called "climate change" is unclear. And should the section heading be called "effects of climate change on tropical cyclones" rather than "climate change"? I think Level-1 section headings that are fairly generic help novice readers to orientate themselves. EMsmile (talk)

I've listed below which section headings work well in my opinion and which are not ideal:

1 Background --> would change it as explained above

2Intensity --> good, quite generic but I would move this to later
2.1Factors that influence intensity
2.2Formation
2.3Intensification
2.4Dissipation
2.5Methods for assessing intensity
2.6Intensity metrics

3Structure --> good
3.1Eye and center
3.2Size

4Movement ---> good
4.1Environmental steering
4.2Beta drift
4.3Multiple storm interaction
4.4Interaction with the mid-latitude westerlies

5Classification ---> good but would move this to earlier, probably at the very start
5.1Nomenclature and intensity classifications
5.2Naming

6Major basins and related warning centers ---> unsure about this one, could it be subsumed under a more generic heading

7Preparations  ---> good although perhaps could be made clearer who is preparing for what

8Impacts  ---> good, perhaps move to earlier
8.1Natural phenomena caused or worsened by tropical cyclones
8.2Impact on property and human life
8.3Environmental impact

9Response ---> good, perhaps needs sub-headings to show who is responding and in which time frames?

10Climatology and records  ---> doesn't work well I would say; unclear what is behind this
10.1Climate change ---> I would rename it as per above but perhaps a short section heading is aimed for

11Observation and forecasting  ---> Good
11.1Observation
11.2Forecasting

12Related cyclone types  ---> good or perhaps this could be included in the heading on classification? 

I won't be offended if any/most/all of my suggestions are not regarded as useful. Just coming to this article as an outsider and these are my first impressions. I can see from the revision history page that a lot of work has been done on it lately, which is awesome. On track to get it back to FA level? EMsmile (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the "background" should be expanded to include various names, like "hurricane", "typhoon", etc. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@EMsmile: The issue is I haven't gotten to fixing most of this. I still have to add quite a lot to the article which will result in subheadings for sections such as preparations and response. I haven't looked at the other sections in much detail yet either. As far as moving classification, I think we should discuss what a TC is and how it moves and strengthens before discussing classifications based upon its intensity. Major basins and related warning centers could be renamed eventually. Keep in mind that the updating and restructuring will take months to complete. Noah^Talk 22:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. The earliest research into tropical cyclones focused on hurricanes in the West Indies, and typhoons in eastern Asia, both regional names for cyclones with powerful winds. Maybe an "etymology" section? They have that for several country articles. Discuss "Huricán", early names for "Typhoon", the "tropics", and the term "cyclone". Since the lead section would summarize everything in the article, I think it makes sense for the first section to be about the name itself. That lends to the fact that powerful storms have been around for millennia. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: What else should be discussed under preparations? Noah^Talk 00:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

IIRC, the first hurricane warning was in like 1873. Maybe something about Tropical cyclone observations in there, how it was the 1821 hurricane that helped researchers realize that storms were circular in nature? Maybe something about how storms used to make landfall without much warning, like the 1970 Bhola cyclone. Or the 1900 Galveston storm could be an example, how it was thought it would go toward Florida. Then maybe something about how the Hurricane Hunters, and later satellite imagery helped forecasters track storms in real time. The first tropical cyclone observed via satellite was in 1960. Then maybe go into how the improvements in technology helped forecasters get better, with a link to Tropical cyclone track forecasting. And maybe about how it's getting better, that the five day forecast in 2020 was as good as the three day forecast in 2001? This could tie into the economic cost of evacuations, which I've read is something like $1 million per mile of coastline evacuated - see here, here. In most parts of the world, people tend to evacuate ahead of a storm, if they can, and if there are shelters. I'm not sure if it's getting off topic, but this could then segue into some areas with worse infrastructure having more tropical cyclone deaths. Cuba, for example, rarely has hurricane deaths because they do mass evacuations before storms. Preparations vary depending on the part of the world, and the time period, but I think we can cover all of that in an organized section. But then that covers forecasts, observations, and preparations, which might be too much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Maybe discuss a brief history of watches/warnings that covers most of the points you bring up? I'm not entirely sure forecasts and observations should be included under preparations as that seems to be too much. I think the coverage should focus on watches/warnings, evacuations, home preparations, and government preparations with each of these as their own subsection. What about items under the current subheadings I have listed? The latter three need additional suggestions for subitems. Noah^Talk 22:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but is this content perhaps already available in a sub-article somewhere? I would expect this kind of content be available on Wikipedia already somewhere but perhaps it's buried deep and not well interlinked. Keep in mind also potential overlap or linkages with the article on natural disaster (have done some work on it today, needs more) and also disaster risk reduction (needs lots more work). EMsmile (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@EMsmile: The goal here is summarize everything covered in subarticles already and introduce material that needs to be covered in subarticles. Quite a bit of material is covered already in subarticles and quite a bit is not. The subarticles are in piss poor shape in most cases, which doesn't help us here, which means I have to write up a summary of what we should be covering in subarticles. Noah^Talk 18:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Hurricane Noah: Which are the sub-articles that you currently have in mind here? EMsmile (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

we have Hurricane shutter, Tropical cyclone preparedness, Hurricane-proof building, Catastrophe modeling (not just about TCs), Tropical cyclone warnings and watches, and Tropical cyclone engineering for preparations. All of these articles are in poor shape and need expanded significantly. This is why I am trying to create a summary at the top level so we can branch off at the lower levels. There should be about two paragraphs of text for each of the four subsections I came up with. This would mean there should be a decent sized subarticle (at least 30k prose) discussing warnings and watches and its history (it's small right now), an article of similar size discussing tropical cyclone evacuations (doesn't exist), and a rather large article discussing tropical cyclone preparations in full (brief mentions of warnings + evacs and focusing largely on civilian and government preparations). Noah^Talk 21:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@EMsmile: forgot the reply. Noah^Talk 21:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if any of those sub-articles should perhaps be merged. For comparison: When I dived into the range of sub-articles on the effects of climate change a little while ago, we ended up merging quite a few of them. It was more efficient that way (see discussion here). So perhaps there is scope for merging also with some of these articles that deal with storms and preparing for them etc. EMsmile (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@EMsmile: I would rather not merge subarticles into other subarticles at this point since we need to focus on the main article itself for the time being. Definitely something to consider once this project is done. I really am looking for anything that should be added under home preps, evacs, and especially government preps to make sure their coverage is adequate. Would you have any ideas of things that should be added under these three categories that aren't mentioned in the outline right now? Noah^Talk 21:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2022

Add following text behind the sentence "Hurricane Walaka destroyed the small East Island in 2018,[178][181] which destroyed the habitat for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, as well as, threatened sea turtles and seabirds.": During the high-intensity Atlantic hurricane season of 2017, a population of the criticall endangerend Lesser Antillean iguana was heavily affected, seeing a decline of 25%. VandenBurgMP (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This example was related to a storm destroying land. We already have examples of species sustaining losses following storms. I'm declining this since we have to keep the word count down on an article of this magnitude. Noah^Talk 21:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hurricane

Hurricane redirects here, so there should be a disambiguation link for it 155.4.184.208 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2022

Please remove this sentence:

Hurricane Ivan produced more tornadoes than any other tropical cyclone, spawning 120 tornadoes in total.

and replace it with this:

Hurricane Ivan produced 120 tornadoes, more than any other tropical cyclone.

It's more concise and simpler. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2022 (2)

In this image caption:

Aftermath of the Hurricane Ike in Bolivar Peninsula, Texas

Please remove the unnecessary "the". 49.198.51.54 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done TornadoLGS (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Useful publications (open access) for links between ocean heat content and tropical cyclones

I've been made aware of these three publications which could be useful for this article's section on climate change (or for the related sub-article) or for the section which talks about ocean heat content. They are open access which makes them particularly useful:

• Trenberth, K. E., L. Cheng, P. Jacobs, Y. Zhang, and J. Fasullo, 2018: Hurricane Harvey links to ocean heat content. Earth’s Future, 6, 730-744, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000825 .
• Cheng, L., J. Abraham, K. E. Trenberth, J. Fasullo, T. Boyer, M. E. Mann, J. Zhu, F. Wang, R. Locarnini, Y. Li, B. Zhang, Z. Tan, F. Yu, L. Wan, X. Chen, X. Song, Y. Liu, F. Reseghetti, S. Simoncelli, V. Gouretski, G. Chen, A. Mishonov, J. Reagan, 2022: Another record: Ocean warming continues through 2021 Despite La Niña Conditions. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-022-1461-3

* Cheng, L., G. Foster, Z. Hausfather, K. E. Trenberth, and J. Abraham, 2022: Improved quantification of the rate of ocean warming, J. Climate, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0895.1 EMsmile (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

They don't look like review articles, User:EMsmile. Why do you think they would be good here? Femke (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The last article does not even mention tropical cyclones. Please be a bit more considerate of the community's time by pre-vetting the suggestions you get as part of your paid-for project. Femke (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the third article. I should have put that one at ocean heat content. The other two articles I still consider useful for the following reasons:

• They are peer reviewed, in reputable journals and by reputable authors (in particular Kevin Trenberth of whom I've read quite a few publications lately).
• The fact that they are open access makes them easy to utilise for Wikipedians and easy to verify for our readers.
• As per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science), it is allowed to use primary sources, they don't all have to be review articles. Many of the publications currently used for this article are in fact not review articles either. So I am not sure what you are getting at with that comment?
• Furthermore, the introduction section of such papers often does contain a bit of a literature review from where information can be taken. Here in this case, the relationship between increasing ocean heat content and more intense tropical cyclones is explained.
• I still wonder how much content about climate change impacts should be in this article versus in the article on tropical cyclones and climate change, as per my comment above.
• With regards to wasting time of volunteers, I am sorry if you felt that my talk page comment was wasting your time. This was not my intention. In future I can try and make it clearer why I think a particular publication would be useful for an article. Or I just attempt to build it in but I would be hesitant to do so for this article as there are other active editors for this article who know the topic far better than I do.
• Maybe it's better if I move this entire section to the talk page of tropical cyclones and climate change where it might be more needed? EMsmile (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Merging another article into this one would be inappropriate given this one's current size and the need I have expressed to expand certain areas that are quite lacking in their coverage (example: preparations that is currently 5 lines). Noah^Talk 21:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with sub-article Tropical cyclones and climate change?

I am picking up on something that I had raised on 8 March 2021 (see above): The lead of Tropical cyclones and climate change was pretty poor so I have now copied the content of this article on climate change across to replace the old lead at Tropical cyclones and climate change. So now we have identical content in two places. This is not ideal. If new research comes to light we would have to update the data in two locations. My suggestion would be to use the excerpt tool instead, i.e. add an excerpt here from the lead of Tropical cyclones and climate change. I can see pros in cons in this. What do others think and if not then what other options are there to ensure the two articles fit seamlessly together? It has low pageviews (about 100 per day) but interesting spikes (when there is a big event, I am assuming), see here. Or perhaps we don't even need such a sub-article and it should be merged into this one? Or redirected/merged into effects of climate change on the water cycle? EMsmile (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would caution you strongly against suggesting mergers into this article when it is already large as is and needs to be expanded in other areas that are weak. Noah^Talk 21:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, no merger then but what about my other suggestions? Using the excerpt tool? (my suggestion was: add an excerpt here from the lead of Tropical cyclones and climate change, so that we don't have to keep updating the same content in two places) And what could be other options to ensure the two articles fit seamlessly together? I am still not 100% if having a separate article called Tropical cyclones and climate change is really warranted, given that it overlaps a lot with this one. EMsmile (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think a big issue surrounding that article is it needs updated and hasn't been fully fleshed out. Climate change and TCs is a widely covered topic and has a lot of research into it. This article here is the summary of TC as a whole. There are a lot of similarities in structure, but the content will be different. I think we should leave the section here separate from the climate change article since this article is planned to get back to FA again while the other article would still be at a lower rating. People wouldn't edit it as carefully as a FA and thus that may cause issues. It could be explored down the line if both articles are fully developed. Noah^Talk 20:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

In the introduction, the second sentence ends with a colon. Please replace it with a full stop. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Droughts

In the introduction, please mark "though this claim is disputed" with (ironically) {{disputed-inline}}. The article has no evidence of such a dispute. 120.21.125.125 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Dispute

Why does the introduction claim that there's a dispute over tropical cyclones being able to end droughts? In the body of the article, the sole sentence referencing droughts cites nothing that disagrees with this premise in general. 170 and 171 talk about plenty of droughts being ended by tropical cyclones in South Korea and the eastern US, and storms such as Hurricane Vince are demonstrated to have relieved droughts elsewhere in the world. 169 is abused: it only says that droughts in the southeastern US don't get relieved by them, because of atmospheric conditions occurring specifically in that part of the world. The source provides no evidence that this author, or anyone else, disputes the idea that tropical cyclones can relieve droughts anywhere in the world. 120.21.125.125 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022 (2)

Please remove this phrase

many of these systems went undetected unless it impacted land or a ship encountered it by chance.

and replace it with this one

there was no way to detect a tropical cyclone unless it impacted land or a ship encountered it by chance.

This is to avoid the change from plural "many of these systems" to singular "it". Thank you. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I believe both forms of the relevant statement are valid and this boils down to preference. Seeing as no editor out of the roughly 40 who actively view recent edits here have decided to alter it, I think we can leave it as is. —Sirdog (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

No. Seriously? It is always inappropriate to mix singular "it" and plural "systems". It's one of the most basic aspects of English grammar. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Sirdog I believe that they're right, the sentence is very awkward to read. I am no expert, so I cannot tell you whether or not this is a hard rule in English grammar, but the sentence would be improved by the edit. I see no reason not to accept this edit, so I'll add it now. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the ping, Actualcpscm, so that I could make this a learning experience. No issues on my end. When I reviewed this request almost 2 weeks ago I legitimately did not catch the fact that plural "systems" and singular "it" were mixing. Glad someone came along and picked up my slack . Cheers, and happy editing! —Sirdog (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

concern: inaccuracy of the saffir-simpson hurricane wind scale

okay, i hate how saffir-simpson tracks can be inaccurate, like the saffir-simpson tracks of hurricane lorenzo (2019), and hurricane michael (2018) (both were category 5 hurricanes and hurricane michael made landfall on the florida panhandle as a category 5 hurricane). i NEED answers on why the saffir-simpson hurricane wind scale can be inaccurate sometimes. 2600:6C5D:5000:47F:1D74:4AC5:6D31:5B69 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The track maps we provide only show points at the 6-hourly synoptic times. Both Michael and Lorenzo peaked between synoptic positions so those points are not reflected in our maps. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Why has the Hurricane color scheme changed for the Saffir-Simpson scale?

There is no reason for it to be changed. It was perfect before and this means all cyclone history tracks must be updated to the new color, this does not make sense... 206.83.102.211 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The previous colors, while nostalgic for many readers I'm sure, did not satisfy accessibility. That's an issue by itself for our colorblind readers, but it's also a problem for editors. Without the change, editors would no longer be able to nominate articles to WP:FAC. A bot will be utilized to change the vast majority of maps. We'll manually correct the ones that remain after. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 22:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2023

Diff:

−

{{Main|Tropical cyclone scales}} [[File:Maria, Bopha and Saomai 2006-08-07 0435Z.jpg|thumb|upright=0.95|Three tropical cyclones of the [[2006 Pacific typhoon season]] at different stages of development. [[2006 Pacific typhoon season#Severe Tropical Storm Bopha (Inday)|The weakest]] (left) demonstrates only the most basic circular shape. [[Typhoon Maria (2006)|A stronger storm]] (top right) demonstrates [[rainbands|spiral banding]] and increased centralization, while the [[Typhoon Saomai|strongest]] (lower right) has developed an [[eye (cyclone)|eye]].|alt=Satellite image of three simultaneous tropical cyclones]]

+

{{Main|Tropical cyclone scales}} [[File:Maria, Bopha and Saomai 2006-08-07 0435Z.jpg|thumb|upright=0.95|Three tropical cyclones of the [[2006 Pacific typhoon season]] at different stages of development. [[Tropical Storm Bopha (2006)|The weakest]] (left) demonstrates only the most basic circular shape. [[Typhoon Maria (2006)|A stronger storm]] (top right) demonstrates [[rainbands|spiral banding]] and increased centralization, while the [[Typhoon Saomai|strongest]] (lower right) has developed an [[eye (cyclone)|eye]].|alt=Satellite image of three simultaneous tropical cyclones]]

122.52.66.207 (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: Tropical Storm Bopha (2006) is at AfD after IP122... removed a redirect from 2006 Pacific typhoon season#Severe Tropical Storm Bopha (Inday). If the AfD succeeds - as it will - then the proposed edit request will have the result of changing a blue Wikilink to a red Wikilink. David notMD (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Let's wait for the result of the AfD discussion, since the course of action depends on that. Actualcpscm (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

An info box of hurricane seasons thruout world is needed at top of the page. this faq information is currently buried in a table way down the page, where it is hard to find.Rich (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the Part of a Series box. King O' Fools^Talk 01:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

New tropical cyclone info box on certain pages?

What's with the info boxes style change? TheEasternEditer (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

After a lot of discussion it was determined that the infobox needed to be updated to make it consistent with other infoboxes on Wikipedia, as well as general Wikipedia policies such as accessibility and will be gradually rolled out as time allows. Unless someone can create a bot to roll it out sooner.Jason Rees (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Chlod is making one right now. Noah^Talk 23:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023

Change grammar, to remove comma and replace with full stop, and place an and at the end of a list. Passage copied below with area in need of changes highlighted with asterisks:

Several factors are required for these thunderstorms to develop further, including sea surface temperatures of around 27 °C (81 °F) and low vertical wind shear surrounding the system,[37][38] atmospheric instability, high humidity in the lower to middle levels of the troposphere, enough Coriolis force to develop a low-pressure center, ***and*** a pre-existing low-level focus or disturbance,***replace comma with full stop***[38] There is a limit on tropical cyclone intensity which is strongly related to the water temperatures along its path.[39] and upper-level divergence.[40] An average of 86 tropical cyclones of tropical storm intensity form annually worldwide. Of those, 47 reach strength higher than 119 km/h (74 mph), and 20 become intense tropical cyclones (at least Category 3 intensity on the Saffir–Simpson scale).[41] Adamsmith142 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for the suggestions. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review

This 2008 featured article has not had a formal review since and I think quite a few issues have piled up since it was promoted, mostly to do with keeping the article up-to-date. A non-exhaustive list of issues:

1. the last paragraph of the lead is a bit too long, and I find it somewhat difficult to read.

   I've tried to solve this. Would be good if expert rereads it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

2. This paragraph talks about tropical cyclones being able to relieve drought, but this fact is not found elsewhere in the article.

   I added a few sentences/sources discussing this facet in the Impacts section —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

3. the section about beta drift doesn't have any citations.
4. The layout of Major basins and related warning centers is quite ugly. That table should probably be above the text instead of next to it.

   I have moved the table above the text and will be go through it with a fine toothcomb over the next few days.Jason Rees (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

   I have reworked this section but still need to source it as it was compiled using personal knowldge.Jason Rees (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

   Great! Thanks for delving in with your knowledge. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

5. The sentence Environmental steering is the dominant term. Is a bit confusing: I first thought the term term is about the word. Only upon second thought did I realise that it is the mathematical jargon (part of a sum).

   Changed the sentence to something more clear, rather than an implicit reference to some equation. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

6. the artificial dissipation section may be unduly long and too much focus on the US. I think the sentence about the US government criteria for storm selection (because there was…) Should be dropped
7. the total death from tropical cyclones is cited to a 2005 source. Is there a more up-to-date estimate?

   The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters has an estimate of 233,000 deaths from 1998 to 2017. WMO's website has a total of 779,324 deaths over the past 50 years but I have no idea when that figure was last updated. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

8. The first paragraph of preparedness is unsourced and seems to overlap a bit with the two paragraphs after.
9. forecasting section is largely based on old sources. I'm sure forecasting has improved since.
   1. Forecasting is an odd one as we know where it is going but we don't yet know how intense it will be.Jason Rees (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
10. The long term activity trends section is a complete mess. Mostly based on old sources, it also lacks structure. The subsection about climate change fails to mention any of the recent review papers/reports (IPCC 2019, and other sources now added to tropical cyclones and climate change)
11. the see also section may be too long. Are we sure there are no.duplicates with the body?

    I removed the link to List of tropical cyclone records since that was already in the body and rotated List of most intense tropical cyclones up to the {{main}} template at the start of §Notable tropical cyclones. Added a link to tropical meteorology to the See also section, since that is the broader scientific discipline that covers tropical cyclones. Left the other links in the Tropical cyclone seasons part of See also intact since those serve as natural explainers of the regions that the individual season articles refer to, though perhaps a nav template in the page footer is desirable. MOS:SEEALSO does not prohibit link redundancy, and some of these redundant links have some utility for the reader. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to rewrite the climate change subsection from scratch somewhere in the near to medium future. Other defects of this article are completely beyond my area of expertise. I'm sure there are some volunteers here to get this article back in shape. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Jason Rees, do you think you'll be working on this a bit further on the short/medium term? If not, do you know any other good editors to help? Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I will see what I can do but it might be worth putting a note on the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season to see if there are any editors there willing to help.Jason Rees (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

If there aren't any objections I'm planning to bring this article to FAR after my soon-to-start wikibreak in the hopes of getting more editors engaged. I'm pretty sure we can save the star :). Jason Rees, if you're planning to help during FAR, when would work best for you? Or would you prefer to solve the outstanding issues without FAR? Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Since this article has not been reviewed properly in 12 years, it might be better to go for an FAR and get a range of opinions on what people think needs doing to it before fixing it up. I haven't got any preference on when to go for it at the moment. Jason Rees (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

#12 I think the following sentence isn't quite neutral, with unnecessary adjectives: In addition, hurricanes can carry toxins and acids onto shore when they make landfall. The flood water can pick up the toxins from different spills and contaminate the land that it passes over. The toxins are very harmful to the people and animals in the area, as well as the environment around them. The flooding water can also spark many dangerous oil spills. Not sure how important this idea is in the wider context.

Removed the unnecessary adjectives. Toxins, by definition, are harmful (in varying capacity). Oil spills can be dangerous, but discussion/elaboration of those effects would be better suited for oil spill. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Climate change subsection

I'm proposing the following text to completely replace the climate change subsection. The subsection was now ordered by study, which is bad practice as we would love to rely mostly on review papers and order by the aspects of tropical cyclones that change. Also, we should aim to write about facts and therefore use Wikivoice instead of quoting individual researchers. The section below is a summary of the appropriate section in tropical cyclones and climate change. I know my prose isn't always great, so I'm putting it here first for people to comment. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Climate change can affect tropical cyclones in a variety of ways: an intensification of rainfall and wind speed, a decrease in overall frequency, an increase in frequency of very intense storms and a poleward extension of where the cyclones reach maximum intensity are among the possible consequences of human-induced climate change.

Tropical cyclones use warm, moist air as their fuel. As climate change is warming ocean temperatures, there is potentially more of this fuel available. Between 1979 and 2017, there was a global increase in the proportion of tropical cyclones of Category 3 and higher on the Saffir–Simpson scale. The trend was most clear in the North Atlantic and in the Southern Indian Ocean. In the North Pacific, tropical cyclones have been moving poleward into colder waters and there was no increase in intensity over this period. With 2°C warming, a greater percentage (+13%) of tropical cyclones are expected to reach Category 4 and 5 strength. A 2019 study indicates that climate change has been driving the observed trend of rapid intensification of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin. Rapidly intensifying cyclones are hard to forecast and therefore pose additional risk to coastal communities.

There is currently no consensus on how climate change will affect the overall frequency of tropical cyclones. A majority of climate models show a decreased frequency in future projections. For instance, a 2020 paper comparing nine high-resolution climate models found robust decreases in frequency in the Southern Indian Ocean and the Southern Hemisphere more generally, while finding mixed signals for Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclones. Observations have shown little change in the overall frequency of tropical cyclones worldwide.

There has been a poleward expansion of the latitude at which the maximum intensity of tropical cyclones occurs, which may be associated with climate change. In the North Pacific, there may also be an eastward expansion. Between 1949 and 2016, there was a slowdown in tropical cyclone translation speeds. It is unclear still to what extent this can be attributed to climate change: climate models do not all show this feature.

Warmer air can hold more water vapor: the theoretical maximum water vapor content is given by the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, which yields ≈7% increase in water vapor in the atmosphere per 1 °C warming. All models that were assessed in a 2019 review paper show a future increase of rainfall rates. Additional sea level rise will increase storm surge levels. It is plausible that extreme wind waves see an increase as a consequence of changes in tropical cyclones, further exacerbating storm surge dangers to coastal communities. A 2017 study looked at compounding effects from floods, storm surge, and terrestrial flooding (rivers), and projects an increase due to global warming.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

To be completely honest @Femkemilene: I am not sure what to think of your proposed addition - I agree that the section should use wiki voice and that the section needs a rewrite, but I'm not convinced that you have found the right bits to highlight. For example, there is nothing on vertical windshear in your proposed additions, which is forecast to increase if im not mistaken. Let's try developing Tropical cyclones and climate change a bit more, before focusing on the section in this article.Jason Rees (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Jason Rees, so you would like more details about the mechanisms, and possibly less about the overall conclusions. I'll read a bit more and will develop the sub- article a bit more. Any other feedback? Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: My feeling is that the section will write itself, once we have gotten tropical cyclones and climate change up to scratch. With regards to the TC and CC article, we have to remember that people are dumb and will wanna know the basics first before we move on to the more meatier stuff. This is why I am adding a background section in as the very first paragraph outside of the lead.Jason Rees (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the proposed changes here are good, as it fixes the problem in the current article of listing study after study. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I've worked a bit further on our sub- article, but the vertical windshear doesn't appear superfrequently in the climate change literature on tropical cyclones. I've added some information about a weakening windshear in East Asia. The research showing increased vertical windshear in the Atlantic stems from 2007, but is still cited as of 2018.. I think these conflicting findings are difficult to integrate in an article like this. As such, I'm now going to post the above proposal, and further improvements can be done in-article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Climate change sub-article

So great to see all this work being done on this article, thanks Femke Nijsse and Jason Rees! I am just wondering about the "climate change" section. When I see a note saying "main:tropical cyclones and climate change" then I straight away wonder: how much information do we need here if we have a sub-article for it anyway? Surely just a brief summary? Potentially just an excerpt from the other article (although excerpts seem to be frowned upon for featured articles). And also in the other direction: is the information that is now included in the "climate change" section equally to be found in the article tropical cyclones and climate change or is it now better here than what is in the sub-article? EMsmile (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I wrote the section after I worked and the sub-article with the same sources. Having a sub-article is irrelevant to the question of what is due within a certain article. The articles should be self consistent and whether text should be included depends on the proportion of literature dedicated to that topic and the overview literature.

I've removed one primary source which was newly added. There is a tiny bit extra I could cut.

The paragraphs above climate change are severely outdated and I suspect they should be condensed. Jason Rees, shall I write the bit about paleo and climate variability? It seems your to do list is quite long. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@EMsmile: Thanks for the comments - I would argue that the CC should be a summary of the current thinking around CC. Similar to how the section on tropical cyclone naming doesn't go into the whole history of tropical cyclone naming. @Femkemilene: You have already gone ahead and started reordering the section but I was going to say how can I refuse an offer of help from someone who has a PHD in CC.Jason Rees (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes but eventually, the content that appears under the CC section should be the same as what uses can find at tropical cyclones and climate change, right? So if Femke updates the CC section in this article, then this should be copied to the tropical cyclones and climate change, or vice versa. I noted that the article tropical cyclones and climate change so far has a rather incomplete lead section, for example. But perhaps the plan is to tackle that article after this one. EMsmile (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And I don't understand this statement: "Having a sub-article is irrelevant to the question of what is due within a certain article.". Why do you see it as irrelevant? For me each Wikipedia article is embedded in the entire web of articles in Wikipedia. So if there is a (good) sub-article, then why would I re-write and double up on content? Isn't that inefficient and not good use of our time? Maybe this is a philosophical question but I have seen it so many times in Wikipedia that the content of the main article either duplicates a lot from the sub-article; or that the sub-article is actually much weaker and doesn't even contain the content from the main article, even though it should. As a result, some "main articles" have become overly long (86 kB of readable prose). See for example the one on marine life. Someone must have decided that it should "stand on its own", so e.g. in the section on "marine viruses" it has 8 paragraphs and several images even though it links to {{main:marine viruses}}". Am I missing something? I am just bringing this up because we had a similar discussion at sustainable energy and as we're doing collaborative editing, it would be good to understand how the other person approaches this so that we don't edit "in different directions". EMsmile (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I base that statement on the WP:featured article criteria, which talk about comprehensiveness and summary style. The balance of these two statements means that the text in the article should reflect the proportion of attention of the literature. There is always some editorial freedom to make sure overlap between horizontal articles isn't too big, but there is no need to compromise the main article just because sub- articles exist. That said, 86 kB is definitely too long, and the article you link should be summarised over the entire board. The rationale for condensing that article is summary style (and WP:SANDWICHING for the images). FemkeMilene (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@EMsmile and Femkemilene: I think that there are a lot of things that need to be worked out with regards to this article as it currently stands at around 141000 bytes. Personally, I take inspiration from the tropical cyclone season articles which seem to do a good job of summarising what happened during a storm without going to far in depth. As a result, I hope to replicate that here with the plan below containing several of my personal thoughts on how this article should be developed.Jason Rees (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I am just wondering what the current planning is for the sub-article tropical cyclones and climate change? Does anyone have it on their to-do list, or will it be done the other way around: first work on the content in the section on climate change and later sync it with tropical cyclones and climate change? Just wondering. EMsmile (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I've worked extensively on tropical cyclones and climate change in preparation for the above text, which is a summary extracting the HQRS. The page has low page views, so I'm not going to work any further on it. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Intensity subsection

We need to figure out exactly how we are going to structure the intensity subsection and what kind of a subarticle we need to write for it (if we need one). Noah^Talk 15:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: Would you have any ideas? Noah^Talk 15:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the tropical cyclone expert, so I find this quite difficult. My first thought is that rapid intensification should be part of intensity.. I'm quite surprised I cannot find recent books on Google books that cover the topic in its entirety, which may be because of not using the right search terms. I always use books when I don't know how to structure an article: find the index of a couple of high-quality books and mix-and-match. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: I will create and add a plan here tonight for what this section should cover so I can begin working on it this week. Noah^Talk 18:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Plan

• TCs intensity determined by winds and pressure
• Observed common intensities and extremes
• Other metrics for intensity (HSI/ACE/IKE)

Factors (their roles in intensification and weakening)

• SSTs
• Wind Shear
• Role size plays
• Outflow
• Moisture
• OHC + Tropical Cyclone Heat Potential
• Structure changes + interaction with other systems
• Landmasses, brown ocean effect, orographic lift, jet enhancement

Formation

• Major required components
  • Coriolis effect
  • Instability
  • Short remention of shear and SSTs
  • Low-level disturbance
  • Upper-level Divergence
• Unusual formation areas
  • Mid-lats
  • Near Equator
  • SATL
  • Met Sea & Black Sea
  • SE Pacific, Great Lakes
• Influence of Climate Cycles
  • MJO
  • ENSO
  • Rossby waves
  • Convectively coupled Kelvin wave

General intensification/RI

• General intensification information
  • Inland/Brown Ocean
• Rapid intensification/rapid deepening

Weakening and Dissipation

• Current section, but more condensed

Methods

• Brief explanation on Dvorak's role for intensity + brief on recon, direct observ, and height reduction conversion
• Wind-pressure relationship
• Other commonly-used tools for measuring intensity (ADT, SATCON, ASCAT, SMAP)

@Femkemilene and Hurricanehink: I already spok×e to Jason off wiki about this one. What do you guys think about this plan? Bolded items are subsections of intensity. Noah^Talk 01:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm slightly intimidated by the abbreviations. Just make sure it stays accessible and I'm happy :). FemkeMilene (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The abbreviations are just for the list of points here. They will be written out in full in the text. I have never really been fond of using just abbreviations in text other than for agency names. I will need to move intensity under classification per Jason Rees's plan. Would we need any more subsections under intensity or is the proposed organization fine? Noah^Talk 20:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm.. The second paragraph is quite long. Can it be further reduced to keep paragraph size in check (halved??)? I think the factors is the most interesting subsection here and deserves most of the space. If that doesn't make sense, ignore me as I'm not the expert. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: I still have to add the bit on wind height reduction to the first paragraph. I can’t reduce the coverage of the methods without cutting important details. I actually left out a bunch of lesser known satellite tools. As for the factors, it will likely get at least the same if not more coverage than the methods. Noah^Talk 22:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional comment: I added that bit in for the first paragraph. That second paragraph is okay for size. I have actually seen paragraphs larger than that be acceptable at FAC. The methods section is now completely finished and I have addressed all of the points I intended to. I will add in the wind-pressure relationship today; I got a couple academic journals on it. I likely won't add anything else in until after my finals on Monday, especially considering I have to work today and tomorrow. Anyways, factors will be the next intensity subtopic to be addressed and boy oh boy there is a lot to address. EDIT 21:34 Actually, the WPR also needs to be in the methods section as well, which should finish it. Noah^Talk 12:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I am working on the factors now and added in a bit about OHC/TCHP tonight since my exams are done. Noah^Talk 01:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I think we need to get this article back to GA at least by the end of this year. Should intensity be its own separate section from classification and contain the items I list above? I think we need to make an outline of what the entire article should contain. Noah^Talk 00:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Continuing

13. The popular culture section seems to have examples only from a single country (US). Surely, tropical cyclones must be portrayed in pop. cult. in Japan, Central America / Mexico. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Readding

I readded this discussion from the archive as work still needs done. I plan to restart where I left off soon... Noah^Talk 16:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

References