Talk:Storm

Storm was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 1, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Weather: Non-tropical / General Top‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from Storm damage was copied or moved into Storm with this edit on 18:42, 20 July 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Nostorm

As far as I am aware, the term nostorm is not corroborated by any secondary source. Does any one have more information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.239.234.204 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?

I wasn't sure how to deal with this topic. There's alot of storm articles floating around, but none general enough to warrant a redirect imo. Some Meterology buff familiar with wikipedia should take a look at these articles and work some kind of coherence into the list. I'm new to this, so please comment, I try to be bold in updating pages.
-W

Can anyone help with weather related searches?

The Weather Channel's storm encyclopedia might be a good start. (^'-')^ Covington 06:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Hey I think that Freezing rain can be merged into this article. Please give me some feedback.ch 17:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged, maybe. Into Storm, no. If we want to do any merging, then we should take all the different articles on PRECIPITATION (including this one) and merge them together. I have no opinion, personally, on whether this merging should take place or not, but if it is done, then all precipitation articles (rain, snow, sleet, wintry showers, hail, graupel, and freezing rain) should be merged into one article on precipitation. Famartin 22:14 28 April 2006 UTC

ABSOLUTY AGAINST MOVING freezing rain article:

That article is about Freezing rain not Ice storms. Therefore it is about a type of precipitations. The same way RAIN and SNOW have their own article, freezing rain HAS to REMAIN on its own. As the writer above mentionned, only a merge of all types of precipitations together into the article Precipitation (meteorology) would be acceptable. However this would demand a lot of work and I personnally think that short articles on individual subject are better with reference to them in that article. Pierre_cb 2005-04-28 23:30 UTC.

AGAINST MERGE PROPOSAL

Freezing rain is a specific kind of weather. No reason whatsoever to merge it into the general topic.PDXblazers 03:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Windstorm here

Support. --Brand спойт 15:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (^'-')^ Covington 22:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The Missing Piece 10:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Dutch?

This [1] page says that the german is Sturm and the dutch is Storm. Changing accordingly to Storm. If that's wrong, just change it. The Missing Piece 14:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaufort / Storm classification

"Storms measuring 10 on the Beaufort scale occur once every five years on average."

Maybe I don't understand the Beaufort Scale, but as I read it category 12 storms are Hurricanes. If this is true there are an average of 10 or 15 Hurricanes in the West Atlantic each year alone. I would assume the statement is based on the storm classification chart from Univ. of Virginia, which seems equally unclear. Storms of the varying intensity happen all the time not once every five or forty years. Could it be that this chart was meant for the Virginia region alone? or am I misreading/misunderstanding it? CRobey 00:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content restructing

This article needs major work. For a start, the long-list-of-storm-types should be revised significantly. I think the list of storm types subsection should include (part of) the list from Cyclone, Monsoon, Blizzard, Thunderstorm, Dust storm and more. The 3rd lead paragraph makes no sense at all, as referred to above hurricanes are hardly as rare as that implys; and the classification table makes no sense; it has not been explained at all. Other sections - the cultural bit, non-terrestrial storms (should solar flares count?), a link to various precipitation types, information on wind and classifications (Beaufort Scale, Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, Fujita scale…). A formation/structure section would be useful in theory, but with the disparate types of storms would not make much sense.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great ideas. Let me know if you'd like a hand. (^'-')^ Covington 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squall speeds

Note that there is discrepancy between squall speeds in the article vs. the squall entry. Quoting from this independent source:

"5.4 SQUALLS

A squall is defined as a sudden increase in wind speed by at least 3 stages of the Beaufort Scale (by 16 knots if facilities are available for measuring the wind speed), the speed rising to Force 6 (or 22 knots or more) and lasting for at least 1 minute then diminishing."

it would seem that the values in this article are OK but the ones in squall are not. Obviously consistency is needed. Someone? Crum375 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now I see the speeds in squall are in mph while here they are in knots, so we are OK, except it would be nice to use the same units. And IMO knots are more correct for winds, at least in N.A. Crum375 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major overhaul

Let me know how the overall of the Storm article worked. This article still needs more information, but I am unable to provide it. SuperCow 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Units

This article should primarily use meters per second as that's the SI unit used in measuring wind speeds. - G3, 21:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Age of Great Red Spot?

The text of this article says the Great Red Spot "...has been raging for at least 340 years,...". But the text of the Great Red Spot article says, "...has lasted for at least 177 years and possibly as long as 342 years or more...". These seem to be in conflict to me. Should the age in this article be adjusted to match that of the other article?

Is a storm always low pressure surrounded by high pressure?

the text states, "Storms are created when a center of low pressure develops, with a system of high pressure surrounding it.". It also claims the Great Red Spot is a storm. However the Great Red Spot is an Anticyclone (a high pressure system).

Typical(average) maximum and minimum duration of each type of storm?

could someone include the information about what is the average, what is the maximum recorded, the theoretical maximum, the minimum recorded and the theoretical minimum duration of each of the storm types please? (at least for storms happening on Earth)--TiagoTiago (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not possible, sorry to say, since they are not that predictable.

Reorganization

I think I'm going to try that soon, plan is to divide the article's various storms by the extent of the affected area, or the size of the system (three categories: Individual, Meso-scale, and larger. Going to briefly mention also Tropical storms since they too are storms. Contributions/80.186.4.11 (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We tried that in the severe weather article, with mixed results. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian interwiki

I would like to have the interwiki "[[no:Storm]]" changed for Norwegian. In Northern Europe the expression "Storm" is meaning just "Windstorm", as a scale classification of strength/intensity of wind. I have taken axtion in the Norwegian article, to change the interwiki for en:wiki to European Windstorm. So pls disable the Norwegian interwiki for storm from this article, and connect from the European Windstorm. --TorSch (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing sections

Detection and preparation are the sections that I see missing. If we had them, half of the wikilinks in the see also would disappear, because they would lie in the text of those sections. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit more content, which covers part of the problem. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge the two articles. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Storm damage be merged with this article. I had redirected storm damage here, but the redirect was reverted, and there's nothing significant in the revised article that isn't mentioned in here. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. Trigaranus (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. No reason why someone looking for information on storm damage should be sent to an article with barely any (beyond a few facts and an anecdote) when there's a full page that covers much more on the subject right here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Storm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator does not seem to be a major contributor to the article's development and it seems that this article suffers from the same problems as Cloud. Ref 1, 2, 28, 29, 30, 34, 49, and 54 are all dead. The section "Notable storms in art and culture" is so poorly sourced and so poorly covered that it is required to be re-written. Many of the storm types, which should be explained, are not covered well and are not even sourced. There is an entire absence of the formation and details of how storm's are powered. Tropical cyclone would give some ideas on how to structure this article as well. I'll place it on hold, but this does not seem possible to fix in time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that the drive-by nom isn't going to bother making the fixes, so I'll just fail this. Wizardman 03:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Failed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Storm classification

"The east and northeast storms are noted for the most frequent repeatability and duration, especially during the cold period." I would guess that this is written in an american context and not a global one. However, I do not feel confident enough in my meteorology skills to remove the sentence myself. Gammew (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I'm sure that was a North American reference. I made the adjustment. Thank you. Pocketthis (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004215605/http://factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=1187 to http://factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=1187

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124020843/http://www.hughston.com/hha/a_12_3_4.htm to http://www.hughston.com/hha/a_12_3_4.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Fix up formatting in the "Types" section: standardize hyphens and dashes after each item, standardize capital letters at the beginning of each description, in the second sentence of the description of "Hypercane" I believe that there is a typo - "astroid" instead of "asteroid". 91.139.85.179 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Red Spot is not a storm

By the very definition at the beginning of the article, the Great Red Spot (or any other vortex in the atmospheres of the giant planets) is not a storm. They are long-lived (instead of transient) rotating masses of "air" in gradient wind balance which do not necessarily have any precipitation or lightning. There is no real analogue of a tropical or extratropical cyclone on the giant planets in terms of a vortex associated with a strong convective storm. In the planetary science literature, the word storm applies only to convective cells and not vortices.

Therefore I propose removing all mention of the Great Red Spot and other quiescent vortices. Instead, Saturn's Great White Spot (a storm and not a vortex) should be mentioned.Vepr157 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please modify the first sentence. Currently it reads:

A storm is any disturbed state of an environment or in an astronomical body's atmosphere especially affecting its surface, and strongly implying severe weather.

This would be better:

A storm is any disturbed state of an environment or in an astronomical body's atmosphere, especially one affecting its surface, and particularly one involving severe weather.

"Implying" is appropriate for the word "storm", but this is an encyclopedia article discussing storms, not a dictionary definition discussing the word. Storms themselves don't "imply" anything. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: Upon reading the first paragraph of the lead I've opted to do a somewhat major revision of it which I believe adequately addresses the concern of this edit request. —Sirdog (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sirdog, yes, you got rid of "imply", which was the centre of my concern. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]