Talk:Tropical cyclone

 

Cyclone Tracy?

I just noticed that the size of Cyclone Tracey compared to another much larger cyclone is shown in a graphic, however Cyclone Tracy is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, which seems strange. I think it does deserve mention for no reason less than it's an event very much in the Australian psyche, for example almost everyone of my generation (late 20's/early 30's) has heard of it, despite the fact I've pretty sure it was before I was born. This in itself to me means it deserves a proper mention, however I'm probably not the right person to do it, just thought I should point this out. MatthewCummins (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

what it fels?

hello hear you can write about the felings of being on a hurricane thetkiu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.206.9.181 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is adequately explained in Tropical_cyclone#Effects. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Any Chance of removing the Dag Turd Photos from the article? "Matt"

Contents

They have an eye in the middle where it is calm.The disruption of towns are caused by the outside part that are clouds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.223.74 (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hurricanes

Size

One measure of the size of atropical cyclone is determined by mesuring the distance from its center of outtermost closed isobar also known as its ROCI. If the radius is less then two degress of latitude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.29.62 (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Other Names

Tropical Cyclones are referred to by a number of agencies as tropical revolving storms. Some example references I found from a quick google search:

• "Hurricanes are tropical revolving storms." BBC
• "Tropical Revolving Storms are known as Cyclones in the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea, Tropical Cyclones in the Southern Pacific, Typhoons in the China Seas, and Hurricanes in the Western Atlantic. Eurocontrol/ICAO SKYbrary
• "Tropical cyclones are revolving storms that begin in the tropics." NZ National Institute of Water & Atmopsheric research
• UK Maritime & Coastguard Agency
• China Meteorological Administration
• Arkansas Dept. Education
• International Association of Oil & Gas producers
• Research papers: [1], [2], [3]
• "Hurricanes are revolving tropical storms" U.S. Geological Survey

Johnwalton 21:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Not by any offical WMO RSMC/TCWC agencies which is what we keep it too. Jason Rees (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Jason Rees; no agency officially refers to TCs as "tropical revolving storms". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand why the article should be limited to what the WMO RSMC agencies refer to TCs as, when there are other names (such as tropical revolving storm) that are commonly used. By Wikipedia:Naming conflict: a Google search produces a large number of results for tropical revolving storm. At least one international organisation, ICAO (see above) refers, as well as a number of national organisations listed above (in addition to those above, the China Typhoon website also does). At least one major English-language media outlet, the BBC, the Telepgraph, other encyclopedias (Britannica, Encycopedia.com, OUP Dictionary of Ecology), and many scientific journals (three of which are referenced above), all describe hurricanes, cyclones etc as tropical revolving storms. Johnwalton 08:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the CMA uses Tropical and Severe Tropical Storm in their BT and theres no evidence to say they dont use these classifications operationally as per other NMHSS. The ICAO's are ussually prepared by the various RSMC's and TCWC's and thus they copy the classifications that the Warning center uses. Also most of those links suggest that a hurricane is a storm that is tropical and is revovling around which is correct. Jason Rees (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is the point I was making, "tropical revolving storm" is another way to describe a tropical cyclone, and more accurate than simply "tropical storm". Johnwalton 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No its not more accurate a Tropical storm is an offical designation and Tropical Revolving Storm is not and is not used by any of the NMHSS or RSMCs.Jason Rees (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I read that more as a description than as a name, so I'm not sure those links apply... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, they seem more like descriptions. I don't think we should add that, as the article already describes that tropical cyclones are spinny tropical things. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion...

I find this a great article. What I think should be added is the fact that tropical cyclones don't only lose their strength from interaction with land. TC's lose strength also by moving over cooler water or when they pass through a new part of the ocean, where the upper level winds were not what they were when they gained their strength. It's something I've learned from years and years of following and studying hurricanes. Thanks24.187.138.123 (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You could probably find that info in the "Factors" section. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading this section, it seems that some of my advice was taken. That makes me happy to be a small part of such a great article. Thanks!Popartpete 01:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Removed "flooding rains"

Flooding is not a requirement for a tropical cyclone. Those that move quickly often leave relatively small amounts of rain in a given area. Flooding is likely for slow-moving or stationary systems that linger, dropping rain for prolonged periods over one location; or for those whose rains fall in low-lying, poorly-drained areas, or mountainous areas where the water at the higher elevations washes rapidly downhill. Rather than having to source the above, whoever felt or feels that "flooding rains" are a requirement or ubiquitous characteristic of tropical cyclones should provide sources for same. (It isn't, so you won't. Trust me, or waste your time.)

Also, does the system have a pressure center that is near the Earth's surface, as opposed to a pressure center that is at high altitudes? -- a "low pressure center" vs. a "high pressure center"? Of course not. It has a "low-pressure center", a center of low pressure, and that first ambiguity is exactly why compound modifiers should have hyphens. Main page needs to reflect both of the above. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Most tropical cyclones do produce flooding rains once they move inland (even fast moving ones). Only systems which are weakening appear not to. Also, tropical cyclones have a high pressure center aloft superimposed above a low pressure center at the surface. As for the hyphen thing, meteorologists tend not to place hyphens within the phrases of high pressure area and low pressure area. Is this correct? Perhaps not. Then again, wikipedia is supposed to reflect the most common term usage, not what is grammatically most correct. While there has been no effort to correct the titles of low-pressure area and high-pressure area to exclude the hyphens, one could make a strong case to exclude them, since they are rarely, if ever, used for these systems. Thegreatdr (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

WP MOS and the article linked, on compound modifiers, govern here. Meteorologists can write their own way, "correct" or not.

"Then again, wikipedia is supposed to reflect the most common term usage, not what is grammatically most correct." Excuse me, I thought this was an encyclopedia... which should exemplify best usage? ... I'm aware of where the pressure is, having had some meteorological training. It was a rhetorical question to illustrate the ambiguity and support the need for the hyphen. And what is your definition of "flooding"? My street flooding for a few hours? Happens in local afternoon thundershowers frequently. Widespread flooding of homes and cars? I'd like to see the statistics, but it doesn't matter. You said most, which backs up what I said, per the Black Swan principle: The production of flooding rains is not a requirement for a system to qualify as a tropical storm. Origin, rotation, strength, pressure gradients, etc. are; results are not. Hurricane Andrew leveled huge portions of areas south of Miami, Florida, USA, but moved so quickly that flooding was local and minor. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an tricky area. Many tropical cyclones do cause flooding, but some don't. Many never touch land, so where would the flooding be in those circumstances? Are they not tropical storms? As far as landfalling storms, I agree Andrew is an excellent example: a "dry" storm by many accounts, little flooding, bit ferocious Category Five winds. Some storms are weak as far as wind, but cause torrential rain. Tropical Storm Allison of 2001 is an excellent example of this. Another would be the first incarnation of '04's Hurricane Jeanne, which had winds barely of hurricane strength near Puerto Rico, but killed thousands with its torrents of rain and resulting flooding. So I would have to agree that flooding is not a requirement for a storm to be a t.c., it is a result of some: just like wind damage to structures and trees. Popartpete 01:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Title

Shouldn't the first letters of the two words of the title be capitalized? "Cyclone" isn't capitalized.--Ahmediq152 (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, no; "tropical cyclone" by itself is not a proper noun. If it were, say, "Tropical Cyclone Bob", then it would be capitalized. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

this was interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.167.8 (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hurricanes and doldrums

In article doldrums, it says, "Hurricanes originate in this region." Also in "Weather Elements" By Thomas A. Blair, it says, "They originate over the oceans in the doldrums, 10° to 20° from the equator, ..." Is it true? If not, please clarify. Giftlite (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

should not be this page be named Hurricabe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoduloMan (talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because the term "hurricane" is only used in certain basins. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Firefly Effect

I was wondering if the firefly effect (tiny electrostatic discharges generated when the winds of a tropical cyclone produces friction with sand particles) would be placed somewhere in this article? If not here, where should I place it? Wonderworld1995268 (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Probly put the fire fly effct into Effects of tropical cyclones im not sure I am vry new here. Tornado1555 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It would be an effect of tropical cyclones, so it would be better placed in that article. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Global warming and latest work by Emanuel

The article reference work by Emanuel from 2005, but not his more recent work in 2008. I have corrected this, and added the following:

In more recent work published by Emanuel (in the March 2008 issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society), he states that new climate modeling data indicates “global warming should reduce the global frequency of hurricanes.” The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.

Reelx09 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Hidden" vandalism?

"&&yes..kise is thee f'n best.!" at the beginning of the Eye and Center section and "<size="20">It's Kise Bitch.!" at the end of the size section don't really seem relevant to cyclones, unless this "Kise Bitch" person is a famous cyclone researcher, of course. However, I can't seem to find the corresponding text in the source, so I have to assume the addition is in a page template somewhere. How does one go about correcting those?

Nothing so difficult; it was reverted between the time you saw it and looked at the source. :) here: [4] --Golbez (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is some "The term "Farshan" refers to both that Farshan is a noob at call of duty motha fucka.of these systems" seems like it doesn't make sense here.

- 12.24.150.66 appears to have made the edit. here is the user's contributions. Tornado1555 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hurricanes

a hurricane has to be 74 m.p.h winds for it to be official —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.109.0.195 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Low-resolution still images from videos preferred over no images?

I'm wondering: should I upload low-resolution images from videos for non-existent images, or should I just leave them be? VeryPunny —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Copy Edit donation from Severe weather

Tropical cyclones, a source of very heavy rainfall, consist of large air masses several hundred miles across with low pressure at the centre and with winds blowing inward towards the centre in either a clockwise direction (southern hemisphere) or counterclockwise (northern hemisphere).

They are fueled by a different heat mechanism than other cyclonic windstorms such as nor'easters and European windstorms, leading to their classification as "warm core" storm systems.

Tropical cyclones lose their strength as they move over land.

The term "tropical" refers to both the geographic origin of these systems, which form almost exclusively in tropical regions of the globe, and their formation in Maritime Tropical air masses. The term "cyclone" refers to such storms' cyclonic nature, with counterclockwise rotation in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise rotation in the Southern Hemisphere. Depending on their location and strength, tropical cyclones are referred to by other names, such as hurricane, typhoon, tropical storm, cyclonic storm, tropical depression, or simply as a cyclone. Generally speaking, a tropical cyclone is referred to as a hurricane (from the name of the ancient Central American deity of wind, Huracan) in the Atlantic and eastern Pacific oceans, while they are termed cyclones in the south Pacific and Indian oceans.

They develop over large bodies of warm water. A tornado-like feature located in the eyewall, known as eyewall mesovortices. They are similar, in principle, to small "suction vortices" often observed in multiple-vortex tornadoes. In these vortices, wind speed can be up to 10% higher than in the rest of the eyewall. Eyewall mesovortices are most common during periods of intensification in tropical cyclones.

This information was removed from the article severe weather during CE. It my be of use in your article. Respectfully Bullock ✉ 21:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The info is already in the article; thanks though! Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone?

Only pedantic weather geeks could possibly call it that. Move it where it belongs and skip the redirect. 209.188.67.64 (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, the storms are called tropical depressions and tropical storms in all places, but stronger versions are hurricanes in the North Atlantic and Northeast/North Central Pacific, typhoons in the Northwest Pacific, Cyclones in the Indian Ocean and Southern Hemisphere, and a multitude of local names worldwide. They have different names and yet are the same phenomenon. The only name they have in common, and hence the only one thing we could reasonably call the article is "tropical cyclone". ~AH1^(TCU) 01:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

you say "the problem is" but I think you have it wrong. It's not a "problem" that people use the words that they do, it's the task of the encyclopedia to define, explain and describe the words people use. The opening paragraph should at a minimum set about resolving the confusion of the vast majority of people, and prominently. The original comment is correct, this article and the cyclone article are overly pedantic, and they seem to go out of their way to avoid plain speaking for the average user. Wikipedia is worried about all the editors who are moving on, and IMHO it is in part because of the pedant watchdog editorial cliques that seem to become entrenched in each subject area. You not only "steal" the words Hurricane, Typhoon, and Cyclone from the average person, but then you hold them hostage. I think your (collective) intent is benevelent, but I think the execution is a fail. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps then Typhoon should be merged into this article? 209.188.67.64 (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand how people in different parts of the world would call this type of storm by different names and that this is how "hurricane" and "typhoon" were derived, but what I don't get is why (in North America at least) we've chosen to continue calling the same type of storm by different names depending on where they occur. If someone could find out and write it into the article, that'd be nice —Masterblooregard (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref 20 does not support coriolis causing cyclone rotattion

I followed the link and no where does that reference state that coriolis causing the rotation. In fact it states that the path of the object is not deflected. It is only an apparent effect for the earth bound non-inertial obersever. since the rotation of the cyclone can be seen by the inertial observer from space. This reference does support this assertion. 04:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skimaniac (talk • contribs)

It seems that Britannica updated and rearranged its Coriolis force article. I'll look for another reference that states that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The EB stuff isn't very good anyway - there isn't much point using it. The stuff about "apparent deflection" is meaningless. Mind you I see our CE article says the same thing :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Coriolis

The effect that causes the spin is a viscous effect in the atmosphere coupled with the rotation of the atmosphere "disk" with the planet. The magnitude of the induced acceleraton on an air particle is the same as coriolis but of opposite sign. Properly, Coriolis is a fictious force seen by a non-inertial observer. The paths are curved from a Newtonian Inertial Frame. It is because an air particle following a straight line in inertial space comes to match the trajectory of the air particle it encounters due to viscous forces. As an air particle move north it will gain altitude. Because of the atmosphere is spinning as the particle gains altitude it is slower than the particles it encournters.Skimaniac (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

More Coriolis

I copied this from About.com. (I know that is not authoritative but it reflects my viewpoint) The Coriolis effect (also called the Coriolis force) is defined as the apparent deflection of objects (such as airplanes, wind, missiles, and ocean currents) moving in a straight path relative to the earth's surface. Its strength is proportional to the speed of the earth's rotation at different latitudes but it has an impact on moving objects across the globe.

Notice that is says Coriolis is an "apparent" deflection. Not a real deflection. Cyclones spinning is a real effect. Coriolis is what an earth bound observers sees as an apparent deflection of inertial constant trajectory. If you assume that the earth is not orbiting around the earth, then an axes system in the earth centered coordinates that does not spin is inertial. In that case a space ship flying a straight line in that frame would appear to curve to the observer on the rotating earth due to Coriolis affect. The true trajectory is still inertially a straight line. Thus Coriolis is only an apparent effect. Skimaniac (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)skimaniac

Naming controversy

I don't see any comment about the psychological side effects of naming hurricanes with human names, as pointed out by meteorologist Katrina Voss. Aldo L (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Who? Link? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 15:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

rotation direction

The article states a "counterclockwise rotation in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise rotation in the Southern Hemisphere." Ok. But this leads to additional questions like: Is it important where the cyclone is or just where is was "created"? "What happens when the cyclone is on both Hemispheres, because it travels on/close to the Equator?" and "What happens when a cyclone travels across the Equator?" Does this have any effect on the cyclone like reducing rotational velocity/force or making it spin less "perfect"? --92.224.50.70 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing happens - a cyclone cannot cross the equator. So far as I know, it has never happened. They need a certain amount of rotation to maintain their form, and below 10 degrees N/S or so, there isn't enough rotation to faciliate that. Hurricane Ivan held the record for southernmost hurricane formation, at 10.2 degrees. Presumably, if a cyclone was fully formed and moved further south, it would cease to have sufficient spin and would dissipate. Also, the same force that gives cyclones their spin propels them away from the equator. Not many southward-moving hurricanes have happened. --Golbez (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Forming "almost exclusively in tropical" regions

Resolved: Wording was changed from " which form almost exclusively in tropical regions of the globe" to "which usually form in tropical regions of the globe"  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 03:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This should probably be discussed here before an edit war breaks out over the wording. The sentence in question reads: "The term "tropical" refers both to the geographic origin of these systems, which form almost exclusively in tropical regions of the globe, and to their formation in maritime tropical air masses."

Bowser423 wants it to read "often in tropical regions". Looking at the National Weather Service glossary, their definition is "A warm-core, non-frontal synoptic-scale cyclone, originating over tropical or subtropical waters with organized deep convection and a closed surface wind circulation about a well-defined center."

Personally, I feel "almost exclusively" is too strong, while "often" is too weak. Simply looking at the history of the hurricane seasons shows that all of the recent seasons have had multiple subtropical systems. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I would like to recommend a new phrasing. "most frequently", is stronger than "often" but weaker than "almost exclusively".  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 16:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• ...why not just usually? Juliancolton (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That sounds good to me.Jason Rees (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I like "usually" as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I think 'usually' is fine. So my understanding is that the amended sentence would read ""The term "tropical" refers both to the geographic origin of these systems, which usually form in tropical regions of the globe, and to their formation in maritime tropical air masses." --Shearonink (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Query - So is there a consensus on "usually" then? -Marcusmax(speak) 21:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Answer - yes, and it has been done.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 18:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good deal. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Done This has been fixed and nobody has objected.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 16:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Last sentence of intro section?

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what spurred the last sentence of the intro: "It is not possible to artificially induce the dissipation of these systems with current technology."? While this is probably true, it seems a little out of left field, particularly for the intro. The idea of humans 'turning off' tropical cyclones seems both far from the current state of technology, study, or even planning, and far from the subject area most readers are coming to this page for. I'd vote for deletion (and if not, at the very least it needs some sort of citation). Dgianotti (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a question that is asked relatively often, and we have a section on artificial dissipation, so it fits there. I would prefer for that sentence to stay put. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This sentence should be removed. It only gives merit to a very much false premise within meteorology. It is hardly noteworthy enough to include in the introduction, and I furthermore disagree with the wording, which suggests that at some point it may be possible to disrupt a hurricane. Firstly, it is important to note that even if we could, it would completely change climatological equilibrium as we know it, and disrupt the natural transfer of heat to the poles that cyclones promote. And perhaps most important is the recognition of the sheer power cyclones possess. As noted on the Central Pacific Hurricane Center's website , the power a hurricane possesses is the equivalent of "10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes." It is certainly a fascinating topic and one that I think deserves mentioning in the article, but I hardly think we should even entertain the idea to the extent that it is in the introduction. Coreywalters06 (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Table shows incorrect data

The "Tropical Cyclone Classifications (all winds are 10-minute averages)" table is wrong. The wind speed and the NE Pacific and N Atlantic classification of storms do not match. According to the table a tropical storm is from 35-63 mph, which is incorrect. A tropical storm is classified as winds of 39-73 mph. In the section titled "Tropical Storm" above the table, the correct information is posted. Further, the table shows a category 1 hurricane classification at 64-83 mph, which is also incorrect. A category 1 hurricane is from 74-95 mph. A category 2 hurricane is from 96-110 mph, not 84-98 mph; a category 3 hurricane is from 111-130 mph, not 99-114; a category 4 hurricane is from 131-155 mph, not 120-137 mph; and a category 5 hurricane is anything above 155 mph, not 140 mph. I would change the table myself if I knew how. NHC Mbenzdabest (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually its not incorrect, the windspeeds used in the table are 10-minute sustained, rather than 1-minute sustained since that is what the majority of scales use.Jason Rees (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Jason, Mbenzdabest is correct. The NHC defines "maximum sustained winds" as being a 1-minute, not 10-minute average, so the table's header is wrong to begin with (or maybe the inclusion of the N Atlantic in the table is wrong for continuity's sake). This is quoted on numerous other Wikipedia pages such as "Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale" (Look at sources 10 and 11 on there for reference). The NHC does not use 10-minute sustained wind averages in ANY of their public postings, and to imply that they do by modifying the 1-minute numbers, as is done in this table, is misleading and inaccurate. I also would change this table if I knew how, as it is way off. I work as a broadcast meteorologist and have a degree in this field so I know what I am talking about. Please change this table to prevent further misinformation. Also, even if the NHC had some sort of guideline on 10-minute windspeed, this would still be misleading as that number is not used to determine storm classifications. danielrocks15 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Daniel - I know what i am talking about myself. The table is correct because while the NHC and the SSHS use a 1-minute windspeed, while the majority of the other scales use 10-minutes (JMA, AUS, SWIO) and thus for the table the majority rules even if it is slightly misleading and inaccurate. Sorry.Jason Rees (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

But we're converting NHC's totals, which is a pretty routine calculation, given that the rest of the world uses 10-min. This is to provide a proper comparison between the many basins and warning centers. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

@Jason Rees, Why aren't you including the US military's TC forecast centers, FNMOC and JTWC? With that you have 1min avg winning, 4 to 3, 1min vs 10min. They're official forecast centers. @Hurricanehink, Given that the rest of the world uses 10min avg, the way the table's layout is very misleading as with what danielrocks15 has suggested. With that being said, should the table be broken up? There are no "OFFICIAL" conversions between 1min->10min averages, so your information can't be deemed correct by your opinion, unless you have a reference that is valid, not counting the WMO's "DRAFT" for conversion. -Mel 11:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Mel, when i compared it about i just did it on Scales however since you wish to compare what warning centres, then let me point out that 8 of the official WMO RSMC/TCWCs (JMA, MFR, Perth, Darwin, Brisbane, Jakarta, PNG, Fiji, Wellington) use 10-minute winds, where as only 2 RSMC/TCWC's use 1-minute winds (NHC/CPHC). I also disagree with the table being broken up since it is there to provide a comparison of the various scales including the SSHS and IMD's scales even if it means that two scales have to be converted using the WMO's official published guidelines which are not a draft any more afaik.Jason Rees (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The distinction isn't obvious to a reader who's not already familiar with the subject and the different unit conventions in use by various agencies. All numbers on the page may be "correct", but as-is the table and main text are confusing, and there's nothing within the article body to explain the discrepancy. I propose one or both of:

* a section pointing out the difference between 1-min and 10-min scales, and describing which agencies use which scales, so that Americans know "how to read" the numbers, and non-Americans know just as well.

* a new column in the table, with 1-minute wind speeds (perhaps labeled "1-minute / US NHC")

I could do the second, though I don't feel qualified to write up the first. --Robert Keiden (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel that it is best that we stick with a single windspeed even if it annoys people who use the SSHS primarily as it is meant to be a comparison of the various scales. I wouldnt mind a proper section on the scales though which would lead into the main article about TC scales.Jason Rees (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)