# Talk:Tropical cyclone observation

What was the unheralded typhoon in WWII that upset sea battle plans? It should get a passing mention in the opening. --Wetman 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question.  They code named it Cobra, and a short report is located here.  It appears to have led to the formation of the JTWC, but so far I can't find any references to the JTWC forming before 1958.  Thegreatdr 23:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has passed the GA noms. The following are bot-generated suggestions for improvment. 
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Tarret 14:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:BL059FA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the observation techniques organized more logically into larger groups like: 

1. Remote sensing techniques: satellite, radar, lightning detection, (GPS meteorology)
2. Upper air/ In situ measurements, like aircraft observations, radio sounding, drop soundings, drifters, rocket sounding
3. Surface observations: a) fixed stations/platforms: weather / coastal/ island observation stations, tidal stations (water level), buoys, drilling etc. platforms; b) moving platforms: ships, 
drifting buoys
4. Sub-surface observations: some operational marine observation methods which are useful and used in detecting regions favorable for hurricane generation/ dissipation
5. Historical/Geological evidence: this could include the non-real time methods written already

What do you think, should we proceed and reorganize this article and add a few new techniques now missing? 
--Paju (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the order (I think it should be surface -> upper air -> remote -> sub-surface -> historical) but I agree with the overall premise. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Thanks for your response. I agree: Starting with surface observations - which everybody can feel and verify themselves on the ground in case of tropical cyclone is occurring - might be the most (?) logical starting point. Historical documents like log books etc (e.g. original of Beaufort scale including the definition of "hurricane force" wind was originally written on a log book - of which I have a copy from the Royal Society; similar stuff is available by many other great historical figures of meteorology as well) could be another starting point. Third option is the remote sensed data (of tropical disturbance) which is nowadays quite often the real starting point for forecasts of tropical cyclone development. But let us see what I can make up... :c) --Paju (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


### Voting for a reorganization of the structure of this article
I see not much came of the conversations of November, which I was unaware of until today.  I did arrange the headers into clusters of larger topics as suggested.  Originally, which is still the article's structure, I envisioned the article arranging the various techniques chronologically by a storm's detection by that method...with tree rings/coral/lake beds detecting the oldest tropical cyclones, then newspapers, ships, and the modern ways tropical cyclones are tracked.  If you arrange the methods from oldest to newest, the order would be newspapers, surface observations, remote sensing, geologic methods, but the storms these methods are trying to detect are jumbled out of order.  If you include a historical section, newspapers become grouped with ship logs and surface observations.  Since there are several different ways of rearranging the article, I suggest a vote concerning the arrangement, instead of being bold, since it's already achieved GA.
Cast your votes for:

1)  The current structure which arranges the topics by order of storm age (oldest to youngest) - Geologic methods/newspapers/surface observations/upper air observations/remote sensing
2)  Paju's structure - Remote sensing/in situ/surface observations/subsurface observations (which would need to be added)/geologic methods
3)  Tito's structure - Surface observations/upper air/remote sensing/subsurface observations (which would need to be added)/historical methods
4)  Oldest to newest methods of detecting storms - Newspapers/surface observations/upper air observations/remote sensing/geologic methods
I propose holding the voting open for at least 10 responses.  Thegreatdr (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the heading "Remote Sensing", there are a number of images under the sub-heading "Satellite Images of Selected Tropical Storms and Associated T-Number".  Below the images, there is the name of the storm and a T-Number such as "Hurricane Emily at T6.0".  There is no explanation what these T-Numbers are.  The same issue occurs on the page Maximum_sustained_wind (with the same images - I left a comment on that page as well). SmilingBoy (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding here too.  T numbers are assigned using the Dvorak technique.  The headline of the table has been clarified, per your question, to eliminate confusion.  Thegreatdr (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lighter oxygen isotopes (18O) are left behind in coral during periods of very heavy rainfall. Wait, isn't O18 the HEAVIEST stable oxygen isotope?32ieww (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that is (well now "was") a mistake, one that has ever since 2006! Good catch DMacks (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tropical cyclone observation. 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/20070927023042/http://www.lsu.com/UNV002.NSF/%28NoteID%29/4E68FC0ECAA2770A86256D6B004A12DF?OpenDocument to http://www.lsu.com/UNV002.NSF/%28NoteID%29/4E68FC0ECAA2770A86256D6B004A12DF?OpenDocument
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) 08:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tropical cyclone observation. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=45222992_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=2&currentPage=0
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051219043234/http://iar-ira.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/flyers/fal03a_e.html to http://iar-ira.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/flyers/fal03a_e.html
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) 18:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)