lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Geopotential height

message: What kind of elevation is "h" here?  It doesn't seem to be geometric elevation, as that is z.  It doesn't seem to be geopotential height/elevation either since the second formula defines that as Zg(h) rather than just h.  Oh, and is elevation and height synonyms here or is there some subtle difference? Drhex (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  At an elevation of h 

message: What does hPa mean? Plinth molecular gathered 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a unit of pressure, in this case a gas pressure.  hPa = hecto Pascals = 100 Pascals ≈ 1 millibar. Deditos 12:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hPa? 

message: This article gave me a very clear idea of the definition of geopotential height. But it'd be nice to have some more data to give a feel for how it differs from geometric height. How much does it differ? Does the difference vary from place to place? Is the difference typically an offset? Or is it a more complex function of geometrical height? I'd love to see a map of how it varies across the world. 216.239.45.4 (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this. I'm at this article because I'd like to better understand meteorological charts which shows winds at different levels of hPa. That is, at about what heights are 1000hPa, 850hPa, 700hPa, 500hPa, 250hPa, 70hPa and 10hPa? If such a table cannot be included here, can there be a See also to this information? 92.0.230.198 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more info for general reader 

message: the math fonts in the text are not the same as the fonts in the equation.
please allow editing so I can fix this.
I makes it more difficult to read especially for newbies  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adinov (talk • contribs) 02:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  formatting 

message: The current version says that geopotential height is more useful in equations than geometric height, and that it eliminates centrifugal force as well as air density which is hard to measure. This isn't exactly correct (see any meteorology textbook). First, the distinction is geopotential height as a function of pressure (isobaric coordinates) instead of pressure as a function of height (geometric coordinates) - geopotential height and geometric height are equivalent for virtually any atmospheric phenomena in the troposphere (the two differ only due to variations of g with height). Second, centrifugal force isn't eliminated with this coordinate transform. Third, air density is indeed eliminated, but it's not really relevant that it's hard to measure - the elimination is done assuming hydrostatic balance, so it only requires the pressure measurement that is used in either coordinate system. I'll now make revisions to the article to correct these points.--Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geopotential vs geometric height
Talk:Geostrophic wind

message: It's not really explained where the pressure gradient that drives this wind comes from. Is it the difference in temperature between poles and equator, random highs and lows, or just a general theoretical thing? Also, a diagram or two would be immensely helpful as an alternative to the equations. --Beland (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a theoretical formulation - the current formulation expresses the dependence on the pressure gradient but not what this gradient is. The Earth's pressure gradients are primarily driven by the temperature difference, but is influenced by a whole ton of atmospheric factors. EpicScizor (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More explanation needed 

message: The set of equations beneath the line "By substituting using the third equation above, we have:" should have sign changes in the expressions following the second equal signs, which then disappear after the third equal signs (as is correctly shown). Cnrwilste004 (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative sign missing in the conversion from equation in terms of pressure and the equation in terms of geopotential height 

message: Units seem to be missing on many things including P for pressure and various other units.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.21.49.169 (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units
Talk:Kelvin wave

message: Hallo,
There are actually two phenomenae called "Kelvin waves" - the others are the shear waves found in the shearing-sheet approximation made popular (in astrophysics, at least) by Goldreich and Lynden-Bell in 1965.  These waves have a time dependent wavenumber k_x = q \Omega k_y t.  I'd add this to the article but I actually came here seeking the original reference, so maybe once I've found that...  7daysahead (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The other Kelvin waves 

message: I was amazed to find no ref to Kelvin.  Here, or on his page.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=DE35745A200A3AC1D8D4BAD3A899BB0A.journals?fromPage=online&aid=413288
needs proper formatting. FX (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit where credit is due 
Talk:Log wind profile

message: I did a fair amount of Wikifying by adding more inline links, more categories, creating "See also" and "References" sections, and a small bit of expansion. I think it no longer needs the "Wikifying" tag and I removed it.
The subject matter involves a quite technical subject and uses a good deal of terminology quite easily understood by people knowlegeable in the field. I see no way in which it can be "dumbed down" so that people with no knowledge of the field can readily understand it. Therefore, I removed the "Confusing" tag. - mbeychok 17:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Wikifying" and "Confusing" stubs 

message: This is from the Wind profile power law article:
The wind profile of the atmospheric boundary layer (surface to around 2000 metres) is generally logarithmic in nature and is best approximated using the log wind profile equation that accounts for surface roughness and atmospheric stability. The wind profile power law relationship is often used as a substitute for the log wind profile when surface roughness or stability information is not available.
And this is from this article:
The log wind profile is generally considered to be a more reliable estimator of mean wind speed than the Wind profile power law in the lowest 10-20 m of the planetary boundary layer. Between 20 m and 100 m both methods can produce reasonable predictions of mean wind speed in neutral atmospheric conditions. From 100 m to near the top of the atmospheric boundary layer the power law produces more accurate predictions of mean wind speed (assuming neutral atmospheric conditions).[2]
Which of the two articles are right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.20.55 (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency with the power law article
Talk:Mesoscale convective complex

message: With adequate referencing (at least one reference per paragraph), this article could easily become B class.  Thegreatdr 20:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Now good enough for Start class

message: I hit this article via RandomPages. One thing to look at is that in the intro, the last sentence is "The definition of an MCC as observed in infrared satellite imagery is:" and then there's nothing after the colon. Is the definition the set of bulleted points under the "Size" heading? If so, either that material needs to be moved into the intro, or the final sentence of the intro needs to be reworded, as a colon is not ending punctuation.  Joyous! | Talk 19:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been fixed.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments about the article
Talk:Puget Sound Convergence Zone

message: Unfortunately my knowledge on this matter is direct experience and as such runs up against OR. I did manage to find some source material that supports what I know from aviation in the region. In rereading the article, however, I don't think it really even needs to exist and the information here should be harshly edited and moved to the Climate section of the Washington (State) article. This will remove this stub article that seems to be fleshed out with non-encyclopedic information about the U-District. Even the information that I was looking to add about the southern convergence zone would have amounted to no more the 3-4 sentences. Posting here because I've been away from editing long enough that if someone can help me (I'll still be researching the correct process for eliminating this stub and merging this information into another), the help would really be appreciated.  If you want to provide feedback on the cite source I found, look here  --SlimJimTalk 10:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern convergence zone
Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ross Jeffries

message: Okay, I guess we'll start even though WoodenBuddha still seems to be on wikibreak. If it's okay with both of you, I think it would be best to begin with issues that do not seem to concern WoodenBuddha. (I think that would be whether speed seduction is a cult, whether Ross Jeffries is relevant, and whether court cases involving Ross Jeffries are relevant, and should be included in the article.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

message: * Would you consider speed seduction's status as a cult or non-cult to be a fact (something that is either true or false) or opinion? If a fact, why, and is there another term that would be considered less controversial? If an opinion, isn't this really about presenting both points of view in a neutral way?
* What, specifically, is in dispute regarding the issue listed as "Wiether Ross Jeffries is relevant"?
* Are these court cases, in your opinion, relevant to Ross Jeffries' notability? Is there enough information to verify Ross Jeffries' involvment in these cases? Is there any reason to think that this would raise WP:BLP concerns?
Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some opening questions 

message: See project page. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed
Talk:Whiteout (weather)

message: I removed the line "This is usually experienced by Vermont, New York, Texas and Maine" because I don't really believe it and it was added by some person who made no other contributions. Put it back if there's any reason to. 71.252.43.16 20:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas? 

message: This picture shows absolutely nothing.
I put in a new photo.  It is not nearly as complete a whiteout as the old one, but it has trees fading into the background for reference, and it shows the characteristic unclear horizon. --Googleaseerch 02:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whiteout Image 

message: The article says in substance that it's not a true whiteout if the visibility is greater than , but the Saskatchewan picture clearly has a far greater visibility and is labeled a whiteout. Which is correct? MattF (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image contradicts text
Talk:White squall

message: This article seems to contradict itself. First it says the phenomenon is common on the great lakes, than it says it might be a myth, then it says it's a tropical and subtropical phenomenon. teucer 17:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

message: Just saw a piece on TV about it being caused by rolling disturbance radiating out from a high-pressure area for tens of miles.  Suspicious as balls to the validity of this and question whether it isn't rather a low-pressure that causes it as in most storms.  Has the barometric pressure ever been cited during a white squall?Longinus876 (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barometric Pressure?
Talk:Dry season

message: In the Pacific tropics and in the Southern Hemisphere, this is called the "Windy Season" and not the Dry season because it does rain. The wind is noticeably higher however. It is drier but not without rain.Student7 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Windy season
Talk:Mohammed Fellah

message: Im a big Fellah fan, so il try to make it better at giving information etc... 
What iv done so far is..
Added Honours, changed language at External links, Added National team information, Added Picture, fixed Height information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiniDude (talk • contribs) 12:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Info

message: I'l try to update this Article weekly after each match is played, mainly for the "App (Gls)" count. But also if something special happens it will come right in here. I keep a "watching eye" on this Article, and i this Article will stay 100% true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiniDude (talk • contribs) 00:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weekly trough the Tippeligaen 
Talk:Pressure-gradient force

message: The page states that pressure is a force per mass.  Pressure is a measurement of force per area, is it not? Nschoem 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual error: Pressure

message: This article assumes that the force acting on the gas is only acting on the gas, and so the acceleration can be substituted using F=m*a.  However this is only true for a very small amount of cases.  It's a little misleading, even if it is true in some cases, to state the formula directly as this equation.  Just saying.
Jondoge (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Conceptual Assumption
Talk:Cloud cover

message: The article is inconsistent regarding units.  It initially references "Oktas" as being the unit.  This seems to be a "local observeration", vs a unit.  Then the next numerical reference talks about 0.68 - which implies 0.68 okta.    The customary cloud cover reference would be percent.  Finally, down the bottom of the article, the discussion of variability seems to oscillate between a 'unit' measure and a percent measure.  The global average is stated as being 67% which seems strangely similar to the statement of 0.68.  Further the [2] reference for the 0.68 indicates "about 70%".     — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.254.170 (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Units for Okta vs Cloud Cover

message: There's a nice PD NASA video of global cloud cover here, but I haven't a clue how to convert and upload videos. This would be a nice addition to this article. Help? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cloud cover video

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:MODIS Map.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 1, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-01-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 21:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:MODIS Map.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: information for project 103.162.161.46 (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloud cover
Talk:Quasi-biennial oscillation

message: In order to try and enhance the QBO page and make it better, I have made some edits to the page, including further information about the 1883 and 1908 stratospheric wind observations and other history leading up to the discovery of the QBO. I also added how the QBO can impact hurricane seasons and how there may be a relationship between ENSO and QBO under the effects section.  And I made a few other edits in the first and last paragraphs of the article that I thought may be useful info.  Hopefully this is all helpful.  JasonPhelps (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Helpful edits

message: https://eos.org/research-spotlights/mysterious-anomaly-interrupts-stratospheric-wind-pattern Arlo James Barnes 09:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  aperiodic event
Talk:Pineapple Express

message: The first time I heard the term "Pineapple Express" was from Seattle TV station KOMO's weatherman Ray Ramsey in the later Sixties.  Ray Ramsey was a fun and unique personality and coined many terms such as "snow snifters" and "drizmal".  It would be in his character to make the term up.   There's a Seattle Times article that describes his style: 
RainCoaster (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Could some weather/climate wizard go into the details of how these phenomena are or are not related? MrRedwood (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pineapple Express vs. El Niño? 

message: I didn't add it to the article because I don't know if it qualifies as an "extreme case" --213.138.251.225 (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 2019
Talk:Rossby parameter

message: Is the current expression of the Rossby parameter really correct? The above equation
: c = u - \frac{\beta}{k^2+l^2}
suggests \beta has a dimension [m^{-1}s^{-1}], since dimension of k is [m^{-1}] and c's is [ms^{-1}]. So the previous equation
:\beta = \frac{2\omega cos\phi}{a}
seems correct to me.
Am I missing something? 210.174.33.192 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the source of confusion some time ago (see the above discussion).  I will defer to your more recent edits since I'm not an expert in the field... Nimur (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Equation

message: I'm missing something too. The text says φ represents latitude, but there is not φ in the formula. Or am I just going blind?
// Jontew (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No φ in the equation? 
Talk:Rossby wave

message: The article begins by explaining atmospheric Rossby waves, namely in terms of the jet stream and Coriolis forces, and emphasizes that "they are not to be confused with oceanic Rossby waves."  The section at the end on oceanic Rossby waves begins with "Oceanic Rossby waves are thought to communicate climatic changes due to variability in forcing, due to both the wind and buoyancy."  How is this supposed to help someone wanting to know what an oceanic Rossby wave is?  Nowhere in this section is the concept even defined, let alone explained.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a better explanation http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/prednino/gloss_f.php Improved the part mentioned above. Prokaryotes (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What is an oceanic Rossby wave?

message: :(81.11.207.128 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2teknikl 
Talk:Bunch

message: I believe this page should be kept according to the guideline found at Wikipedia:Soft_redirect which states that entries that were moved to Wiktionary should either be deleted from Wikipedia or expanded into an article. It goes on to say that for articles that have are deleted it is likely that they will be recreated by well-meaning users. If this is the case, it states, the article should be kept as a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry.
From what I was able to find it looks as if this page has been created at once or twice before as can be seen from the following pages:
*Wikipedia:Transwiki_log/Archive1 - Dysprosia moves the image to Wiktionary December 19 2003
*User_talk:MOiRe - Dysprosia informs the MOiRe that the article was moved to Wikitionary December 19 2003
*Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/December 2004 (1). - image was deleted by RedWordSmith with the reason given being that it was a test page December 5 2004
Wikipedia:Soft_redirect also lists two benefits for keeping the article: It brings Wikipedia and Wiktionary closer together as they should be, and it prevents future cleanup issues.
Also, it has come to my attention that this page should also be used as a disambiguation page with links to articles such as BUNCH, Bunch grass, Bunch, Oklahoma, Chris Bunch, John Bunch, and Brady Bunch. Jecowa 23:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Jacques of Savoy, Count of Romont

message: Translated this article from the French version, with a few corrections and additions and using their illustrations. Hope that's OK. Have not linked dates yet. Had trouble aligning the pictures of the contemporaries at the bottom of the page and would appreciate help.
--Peterk2 23:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job on the translation!  I have done some work on it, but unfortunately I cannot help with the images.  Laura1822 23:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed and done. FactStraight (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation
Talk:Consumer surplus

message: The rule of one half is a bit pathetic.
: Then you should edit it to make it less "pathetic". This is wikipedia. dml 01:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: One criticism of consumer's surplus is that it includes the increase in welfare due to the change in price of the good and change in utility from reallocating income. (CS is the integral of price along the Marshallian demand curve.) Compensating variation and equivalent variation only include the change in welfare due to the price change by holding utility constant. (CV and EV are integrals of price along the Hicksian (compensated) demand curve either at the old utility level or the new one.)  All three can be plotted on the same graph, which is fairly enlightening.  However, I wonder if I should make a section comparing CS to EV/CV for fear of muddling the article. Articles already exist for these topics. Coleca 02:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CS versus EV and CV 

message: I think this article is redundant.  It should be merged with Economic surplus.  What parts from this article ought to be carried over to the other?  Neither the example of the decomposition of gains from an expansion in supply, nor the Rule of one half seem all that useful.
David McArthur 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: disagree entirely, CS is an important concept that can stand on its owm. dml 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that producer surplus (which in importance is similar to consumers' surplus) redirects to economic surplus, I think that the merge is a good idea. Qblik 21:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Economic Surplus?
Talk:Syneresis (chemistry)

message: what causes syneresis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.199.55.173 (talk • contribs)  23:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

message: There are geology pages that point here. It's involved in the formation of some types of rock. It would be a good idea to provide a geology example. -- Dough34 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology example
Talk:Keck Interferometer

message: K and N need explaining here:
On the 85 m Keck-Keck baseline, the Keck Interferometer will have a spatial resolution of 5 milliarcseconds (mas) at 2.2 micrometres (µm), and 24 mas at 10 µm. In its most sensitive configuration, the interferometer would reach K=21 and N=10 mag in 1000 seconds of integration (SNR = 10 per baseline). - the text is a straight copy from Nasa, but I found no explanation there either. SNR appears to be signal to noise ratio, but I'm unclear what "per baseline" means. Any pointers? -213.219.141.119 23:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: K and N are apparent magnitudes through the astronomical K and N filters, which are at 2.2 microns and 10 microns respectively (so they match the resolutions given previously in your quote).  See also .  I'm not sure what "per baseline" is doing there, since there's only one baseline (the 85 m telescope separation) involved.  -- Coneslayer 12:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is K temperature, and what is N? 

message: I think this project is active now, the article should reflect that. IvoShandor 10:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Active?

message: Besides this material needing updating it would be much more useful if it were merged with Keck Observatory since the Interferometer uses the existing facilities at the observatory. IvoShandor 12:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge