Talk:Graupel

message: This page seems to disagree substantially with the dictionary definition of graupel. Why? Matt Gies 18:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering the same thing.  I've only heard the third definition when referring to graupel in weather books.  Dictionaries tend to agree as well , as do weather glossaries from The Weather ChannelNational Snow and Ice Data Center, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  If there're no compelling reasons to keep the first two definitions, I'll delete them soon.  Thanks. Ufwuct 21:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I made the changes.  I will now make this a redirect to Graupel (snow). Ufwuct 17:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 kinds of graupel?

message: It kicks like damp sand. That is, if you scuff/kick your shoe through it, it'll leave kindof a spray pattern.
Not very scientific, i know, but it graupeled (?) here last winter-- that was the main thing i noticed about it, and when I asked a meteorology student here what on earth that had been, he knew exactly what it was when i described the spray pattern and the tiny ice balls. Cantras (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Side note

message: The International Cloud Atlas by the World Meteorological Organization distinguishes between small hail and snow pellets, saying that small hail is an intermediate hydrometeor between a snow pellet and a hailstone; i.e. a snow pellet with an ice covering encapsulating it. We must also notice that the term Graupel is not well standardized in English meteorological language: it is used mostly for snow pellets, but in German it may indicate small hail (Frostgraupel), snow pellets (Reifgraupel) and sometimes even snow grains (Schneegriesel). I think Wikipedia should follow international standards (such as those by the WMO) and not national weather services or a single university in Texas.--Carnby (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on using international standards. What was missing from your edit was a reference to some authoritative source. Good job that you put it now. I've rephrased the paragraph to clarify it and make it more encyclopaedic.  --Giuliopp (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Or maybe that "instruction from the Language Police" was an attempt to inform the reader that there are other articles about similar weather phenomena, as I would be led to believe by assuming good faith. Having said that, the hatnote in question is indeed not very appropriate and the references to those articles should probably go into the See also section. --Giuliopp (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence specifically says "graupel is distinct from small hail," but the small hail article redirects back to graupel.  Regardless of original intent, this is a confusing inconsistency that someone who knows something about meteorology should resolve, either by making separate articles, or, if that's not worthwhile, making a new Small icy precipitation article that covers all these different forms. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just wanted to draw attention to Kevin's comment again.  It's objectively absurd to link right back to the same article, in a sentence that says that they AREN'T the same thing.  But that's exactly what this article does.24.57.218.21 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

text:  "
--Desire Mercy (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Also it says graupel is distinct from small hail, an article which redirects back to graupel. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graupel/snow pellets vs small hail 

message: There is an issue here with the initial summary. It defines "small hail" more than it defines "graupel." Why is there a definition of "small hail" when the lead already establishes the two as different? Why isn't there a definition of graupel?
:: "
--Desire Mercy (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it says graupel is distinct from small hail, an article which redirects back to graupel. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining the wrong thing? 

message: I don't think the photo is authentic. Graupel would melt very fast in hands. They even don't stay solid on the ground. --2.245.161.247 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Graupel. 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/20060405045946/http://www.weather.com/glossary/g.html to http://www.weather.com/glossary/g.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've heard a few people refer to graupel as "sago". Can I add this Cityrailsaints (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a reference? "a few people" doesn't seem like much. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sago 

message: Or what is is phrase supposed to mean?
"...far below the normal freezing point as long as above the homogeneous nucleation point of water." Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 19:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ice typically forms around a nucleus of matter (e.g., a speck of dirt) at the normal freezing point. Without the nucleus, water can supercool before freezing while remaining liquid until it reaches the "homogeneous nucleation point" where it will form ice without a foreign nucleus. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: Conically ablated snow pellets can form when snow pellets fall through a thin wedge of warm air that is above ground level.  As with ordinary snow pellets, these tend to fall in shower form, that is to a significant depth.  The ones that I saw were about 3/16 to 1/4 inch diameter, with the conical part from near the bottom center to almost the “equator”. It was quite obvious that the conical part was formed by melting because of its glossiness.  The accumulation might have been about a half an inch, but it was over a third of a century ago, and I am not very sure about the depth.  It could have been more.  I was a weather spotter at the time, and I would regularly report anything at all unusual, so I probably reported this.  The location was southern McDonough County, Illinois, which is near the juncture of Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois.   
agb 173.233.167.50 (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conically Ablated Snow Pellets