Talk:Tropical cyclone

Featured article review
This 2008 featured article has not had a formal review since and I think quite a few issues have piled up since it was promoted, mostly to do with keeping the article up-to-date. A non-exhaustive list of issues:


 * 1) the last paragraph of the lead is a bit too long, and I find it somewhat difficult to read.
 * I've tried to solve this. Would be good if expert rereads it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) This paragraph talks about tropical cyclones being able to relieve drought, but this fact is not found elsewhere in the article.
 * I added a few sentences/sources discussing this facet in the Impacts section — TheAustinMan (Talk ⬩ Edits) 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) the section about beta drift doesn't have any citations.
 * 2) The layout of Major basins and related warning centers is quite ugly. That table should probably be above the text instead of next to it.
 * I have moved the table above the text and will be go through it with a fine toothcomb over the next few days.Jason Rees (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reworked this section but still need to source it as it was compiled using personal knowldge.Jason Rees (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for delving in with your knowledge. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The sentence Environmental steering is the dominant term. Is a bit confusing: I first thought the term term is about the word. Only upon second thought did I realise that it is the mathematical jargon (part of a sum).
 * Changed the sentence to something more clear, rather than an implicit reference to some equation. — TheAustinMan (Talk ⬩ Edits) 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) the artificial dissipation section may be unduly long and too much focus on the US. I think the sentence about the US government criteria for storm selection (because there was…) Should be dropped
 * 2) the total death from tropical cyclones is cited to a 2005 source. Is there a more up-to-date estimate?
 * The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters has an estimate of 233,000 deaths from 1998 to 2017. WMO's website has a total of 779,324 deaths over the past 50 years but I have no idea when that figure was last updated. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The first paragraph of preparedness is unsourced and seems to overlap a bit with the two paragraphs after.
 * 2) forecasting section is largely based on old sources. I'm sure forecasting has improved since.
 * 3) Forecasting is an odd one as we know where it is going but we don't yet know how intense it will be.Jason Rees (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) The long term activity trends section is a complete mess. Mostly based on old sources, it also lacks structure. The subsection about climate change fails to mention any of the recent review papers/reports (IPCC 2019, and other sources now added to tropical cyclones and climate change)
 * 5) the see also section may be too long. Are we sure there are no.duplicates with the body?
 * I removed the link to List of tropical cyclone records since that was already in the body and rotated List of most intense tropical cyclones up to the main template at the start of §Notable tropical cyclones. Added a link to tropical meteorology to the See also section, since that is the broader scientific discipline that covers tropical cyclones. Left the other links in the Tropical cyclone seasons part of See also intact since those serve as natural explainers of the regions that the individual season articles refer to, though perhaps a nav template in the page footer is desirable. MOS:SEEALSO does not prohibit link redundancy, and some of these redundant links have some utility for the reader. — TheAustinMan (Talk ⬩ Edits) 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to rewrite the climate change subsection from scratch somewhere in the near to medium future. Other defects of this article are completely beyond my area of expertise. I'm sure there are some volunteers here to get this article back in shape. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you think you'll be working on this a bit further on the short/medium term? If not, do you know any other good editors to help? Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will see what I can do but it might be worth putting a note on the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season to see if there are any editors there willing to help.Jason Rees (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If there aren't any objections I'm planning to bring this article to FAR after my soon-to-start wikibreak in the hopes of getting more editors engaged. I'm pretty sure we can save the star :)., if you're planning to help during FAR, when would work best for you? Or would you prefer to solve the outstanding issues without FAR? Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this article has not been reviewed properly in 12 years, it might be better to go for an FAR and get a range of opinions on what people think needs doing to it before fixing it up. I haven't got any preference on when to go for it at the moment. Jason Rees (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) 12 I think the following sentence isn't quite neutral, with unnecessary adjectives: In addition, hurricanes can carry toxins and acids onto shore when they make landfall. The flood water can pick up the toxins from different spills and contaminate the land that it passes over. The toxins are very harmful to the people and animals in the area, as well as the environment around them. The flooding water can also spark many dangerous oil spills. Not sure how important this idea is in the wider context.
 * Removed the unnecessary adjectives. Toxins, by definition, are harmful (in varying capacity). Oil spills can be dangerous, but discussion/elaboration of those effects would be better suited for oil spill. — TheAustinMan (Talk ⬩ Edits) 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Climate change subsection
''I'm proposing the following text to completely replace the climate change subsection. The subsection was now ordered by study, which is bad practice as we would love to rely mostly on review papers and order by the aspects of tropical cyclones that change. Also, we should aim to write about facts and therefore use Wikivoice instead of quoting individual researchers. The section below is a summary of the appropriate section in tropical cyclones and climate change. I know my prose isn't always great, so I'm putting it here first for people to comment.'' Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Climate change can affect tropical cyclones in a variety of ways: an intensification of rainfall and wind speed, a decrease in overall frequency, an increase in frequency of very intense storms and a poleward extension of where the cyclones reach maximum intensity are among the possible consequences of human-induced climate change.

Tropical cyclones use warm, moist air as their fuel. As climate change is warming ocean temperatures, there is potentially more of this fuel available. Between 1979 and 2017, there was a global increase in the proportion of tropical cyclones of Category 3 and higher on the Saffir–Simpson scale. The trend was most clear in the North Atlantic and in the Southern Indian Ocean. In the North Pacific, tropical cyclones have been moving poleward into colder waters and there was no increase in intensity over this period. With 2°C warming, a greater percentage (+13%) of tropical cyclones are expected to reach Category 4 and 5 strength. A 2019 study indicates that climate change has been driving the observed trend of rapid intensification of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin. Rapidly intensifying cyclones are hard to forecast and therefore pose additional risk to coastal communities.

There is currently no consensus on how climate change will affect the overall frequency of tropical cyclones. A majority of climate models show a decreased frequency in future projections. For instance, a 2020 paper comparing nine high-resolution climate models found robust decreases in frequency in the Southern Indian Ocean and the Southern Hemisphere more generally, while finding mixed signals for Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclones. Observations have shown little change in the overall frequency of tropical cyclones worldwide.

There has been a poleward expansion of the latitude at which the maximum intensity of tropical cyclones occurs, which may be associated with climate change. In the North Pacific, there may also be an eastward expansion. Between 1949 and 2016, there was a slowdown in tropical cyclone translation speeds. It is unclear still to what extent this can be attributed to climate change: climate models do not all show this feature.

Warmer air can hold more water vapor: the theoretical maximum water vapor content is given by the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, which yields ≈7% increase in water vapor in the atmosphere per 1 °C warming. All models that were assessed in a 2019 review paper show a future increase of rainfall rates. Additional sea level rise will increase storm surge levels. It is plausible that extreme wind waves see an increase as a consequence of changes in tropical cyclones, further exacerbating storm surge dangers to coastal communities. A 2017 study looked at compounding effects from floods, storm surge, and terrestrial flooding (rivers), and projects an increase due to global warming.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To be completely honest I am not sure what to think of your proposed addition - I agree that the section should use wiki voice and that the section needs a rewrite, but I'm not convinced that you have found the right bits to highlight. For example, there is nothing on vertical windshear in your proposed additions, which is forecast to increase if im not mistaken. Let's try developing Tropical cyclones and climate change a bit more, before focusing on the section in this article.Jason Rees (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , so you would like more details about the mechanisms, and possibly less about the overall conclusions. I'll read a bit more and will develop the sub- article a bit more. Any other feedback? Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that the section will write itself, once we have gotten tropical cyclones and climate change up to scratch. With regards to the TC and CC article, we have to remember that people are dumb and will wanna know the basics first before we move on to the more meatier stuff. This is why I am adding a background section in as the very first paragraph outside of the lead.Jason Rees (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the proposed changes here are good, as it fixes the problem in the current article of listing study after study. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've worked a bit further on our sub- article, but the vertical windshear doesn't appear superfrequently in the climate change literature on tropical cyclones. I've added some information about a weakening windshear in East Asia. The research showing increased vertical windshear in the Atlantic stems from 2007, but is still cited as of 2018.. I think these conflicting findings are difficult to integrate in an article like this. As such, I'm now going to post the above proposal, and further improvements can be done in-article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Climate change sub-article

 * So great to see all this work being done on this article, thanks Femke Nijsse and Jason Rees! I am just wondering about the "climate change" section. When I see a note saying "main:tropical cyclones and climate change" then I straight away wonder: how much information do we need here if we have a sub-article for it anyway? Surely just a brief summary? Potentially just an excerpt from the other article (although excerpts seem to be frowned upon for featured articles). And also in the other direction: is the information that is now included in the "climate change" section equally to be found in the article tropical cyclones and climate change or is it now better here than what is in the sub-article? EMsmile (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote the section after I worked and the sub-article with the same sources. Having a sub-article is irrelevant to the question of what is due within a certain article. The articles should be self consistent and whether text should be included depends on the proportion of literature dedicated to that topic and the overview literature.
 * I've removed one primary source which was newly added. There is a tiny bit extra I could cut.
 * The paragraphs above climate change are severely outdated and I suspect they should be condensed., shall I write the bit about paleo and climate variability? It seems your to do list is quite long. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments - I would argue that the CC should be a summary of the current thinking around CC. Similar to how the section on tropical cyclone naming doesn't go into the whole history of tropical cyclone naming. You have already gone ahead and started reordering the section but I was going to say how can I refuse an offer of help from someone who has a PHD in CC.Jason Rees (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes but eventually, the content that appears under the CC section should be the same as what uses can find at tropical cyclones and climate change, right? So if Femke updates the CC section in this article, then this should be copied to the tropical cyclones and climate change, or vice versa. I noted that the article tropical cyclones and climate change so far has a rather incomplete lead section, for example. But perhaps the plan is to tackle that article after this one. EMsmile (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And I don't understand this statement: "Having a sub-article is irrelevant to the question of what is due within a certain article.". Why do you see it as irrelevant? For me each Wikipedia article is embedded in the entire web of articles in Wikipedia. So if there is a (good) sub-article, then why would I re-write and double up on content? Isn't that inefficient and not good use of our time? Maybe this is a philosophical question but I have seen it so many times in Wikipedia that the content of the main article either duplicates a lot from the sub-article; or that the sub-article is actually much weaker and doesn't even contain the content from the main article, even though it should. As a result, some "main articles" have become overly long (86 kB of readable prose). See for example the one on marine life. Someone must have decided that it should "stand on its own", so e.g. in the section on "marine viruses" it has 8 paragraphs and several images even though it links to ". Am I missing something? I am just bringing this up because we had a similar discussion at sustainable energy and as we're doing collaborative editing, it would be good to understand how the other person approaches this so that we don't edit "in different directions".  EMsmile (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I base that statement on the WP:featured article criteria, which talk about comprehensiveness and summary style. The balance of these two statements means that the text in the article should reflect the proportion of attention of the literature. There is always some editorial freedom to make sure overlap between horizontal articles isn't too big, but there is no need to compromise the main article just because sub- articles exist. That said, 86 kB is definitely too long, and the article you link should be summarised over the entire board. The rationale for condensing that article is summary style (and WP:SANDWICHING for the images). FemkeMilene (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that there are a lot of things that need to be worked out with regards to this article as it currently stands at around 141000 bytes. Personally, I take inspiration from the tropical cyclone season articles which seem to do a good job of summarising what happened during a storm without going to far in depth. As a result, I hope to replicate that here with the plan below containing several of my personal thoughts on how this article should be developed.Jason Rees (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I am just wondering what the current planning is for the sub-article tropical cyclones and climate change? Does anyone have it on their to-do list, or will it be done the other way around: first work on the content in the section on climate change and later sync it with tropical cyclones and climate change? Just wondering. EMsmile (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've worked extensively on tropical cyclones and climate change in preparation for the above text, which is a summary extracting the HQRS. The page has low page views, so I'm not going to work any further on it. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Intensity subsection
We need to figure out exactly how we are going to structure the intensity subsection and what kind of a subarticle we need to write for it (if we need one). Noah Talk 15:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you have any ideas? Noah Talk 15:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not the tropical cyclone expert, so I find this quite difficult. My first thought is that rapid intensification should be part of intensity.. I'm quite surprised I cannot find recent books on Google books that cover the topic in its entirety, which may be because of not using the right search terms. I always use books when I don't know how to structure an article: find the index of a couple of high-quality books and mix-and-match. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will create and add a plan here tonight for what this section should cover so I can begin working on it this week. Noah Talk 18:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Plan

 * TCs intensity determined by winds and pressure
 * Observed common intensities and extremes
 * Other metrics for intensity (HSI/ACE/IKE)
 * Factors (their roles in intensification and weakening)
 * SSTs
 * Wind Shear
 * Role size plays
 * Outflow
 * Moisture
 * OHC + Tropical Cyclone Heat Potential
 * Structure changes + interaction with other systems
 * Landmasses, brown ocean effect, orographic lift, jet enhancement
 * Formation
 * Major required components
 * Coriolis effect
 * Instability
 * Short remention of shear and SSTs
 * Low-level disturbance
 * Upper-level Divergence
 * Unusual formation areas
 * Mid-lats
 * Near Equator
 * SATL
 * Met Sea & Black Sea
 * SE Pacific, Great Lakes
 * Influence of Climate Cycles
 * MJO
 * ENSO
 * Rossby waves
 * Convectively coupled Kelvin wave
 * General intensification/RI
 * General intensification information
 * Inland/Brown Ocean
 * Rapid intensification/rapid deepening
 * Weakening and Dissipation
 * Current section, but more condensed
 * Methods
 * Brief explanation on Dvorak's role for intensity + brief on recon, direct observ, and height reduction conversion
 * Wind-pressure relationship
 * Other commonly-used tools for measuring intensity ( ADT, SATCON , ASCAT , SMAP )
 * I already spok×e to Jason off wiki about this one. What do you guys think about this plan? Bolded items are subsections of intensity. Noah Talk 01:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly intimidated by the abbreviations. Just make sure it stays accessible and I'm happy :). FemkeMilene (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The abbreviations are just for the list of points here. They will be written out in full in the text. I have never really been fond of using just abbreviations in text other than for agency names. I will need to move intensity under classification per Jason Rees's plan. Would we need any more subsections under intensity or is the proposed organization fine? Noah Talk 20:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. The second paragraph is quite long. Can it be further reduced to keep paragraph size in check (halved??)? I think the factors is the most interesting subsection here and deserves most of the space. If that doesn't make sense, ignore me as I'm not the expert. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I still have to add the bit on wind height reduction to the first paragraph. I can’t reduce the coverage of the methods without cutting important details. I actually left out a bunch of lesser known satellite tools. As for the factors, it will likely get at least the same if not more coverage than the methods. Noah Talk 22:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: I added that bit in for the first paragraph. That second paragraph is okay for size. I have actually seen paragraphs larger than that be acceptable at FAC. The methods section is now completely finished and I have addressed all of the points I intended to. I will add in the wind-pressure relationship today; I got a couple academic journals on it. I likely won't add anything else in until after my finals on Monday, especially considering I have to work today and tomorrow. Anyways, factors will be the next intensity subtopic to be addressed and boy oh boy there is a lot to address. EDIT 21:34 Actually, the WPR also needs to be in the methods section as well, which should finish it. Noah Talk 12:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I am working on the factors now and added in a bit about OHC/TCHP tonight since my exams are done. Noah Talk 01:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we need to get this article back to GA at least by the end of this year. Should intensity be its own separate section from classification and contain the items I list above? I think we need to make an outline of what the entire article should contain. Noah Talk 00:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Continuing
13. The popular culture section seems to have examples only from a single country (US). Surely, tropical cyclones must be portrayed in pop. cult. in Japan, Central America / Mexico. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Readding
I readded this discussion from the archive as work still needs done. I plan to restart where I left off soon... Noah Talk 16:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

✅ Intensity
✅ according to Noah. Noah Talk 00:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC) ✅ according to Noah Noah Talk 21:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC) ✅; Didn't want to mention the same information again for what causes an increase in intensity since it's a lot of same ones that lead to formation. Noah Talk 00:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * TCs intensity determined by winds and pressure
 * Observed extremes
 * Factors (their roles in intensification and weakening)
 * SSTs
 * Wind Shear
 * Role size plays
 * Outflow
 * Dry Air
 * OHC + Tropical Cyclone Heat Potential + interaction with upper-ocean
 * Interaction with other systems
 * Landmasses, brown ocean effect, orographic lift, jet enhancement
 * Formation
 * Major required components
 * Coriolis effect
 * Instability
 * Short remention of shear and SSTs
 * Low-level disturbance
 * Upper-level Divergence
 * Influence of Climate Cycles
 * MJO
 * ENSO
 * Rossby waves
 * Convectively coupled Kelvin wave
 * RI
 * Rapid intensification / rapid deepening + explosive deepening
 * Weakening and Dissipation
 * ✅ According to Noah. Noah Talk 01:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Current section, but more condensed
 * Methods
 * ✅ According to Noah. Noah Talk 01:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Brief explanation on Dvorak's role for intensity + brief on recon, direct observ, and height reduction conversion
 * Wind-pressure relationship
 * Other commonly-used tools for measuring intensity ( ADT, SATCON , ASCAT , SMAP )
 * Metrics
 * ✅ According to Noah. Noah Talk 01:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * metrics for intensity (HU SURGE INDEX/ACE/IKE/HU SEV Index/POWER DISSIPATION)

Structure
I am kinda basing this off on a large paper on TC structure in terms of points to discuss here. This is still incomplete. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC) ✅ According to Noah. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Eye and center
 * Clouds in the eye
 * Eyewall
 * Eyewall explanation
 * Conditional instability within the eyewall cloud
 * Strong updrafts and vorticity maxima
 * Downdrafts
 * Asymmetry due to shear and storm motion
 * Cloud microphysical processes and electrification
 * Eyewall replacement
 * Rainbands
 * Distant rainbands
 * Main rainband
 * Secondary rainbands
 * Clouds
 * Clouds involved with tropical cyclogenesis
 * Cloud feedback
 * Vortical Hot tower
 * Clouds in a developing storm
 * Clouds in a mature storm
 * Size

Movement
✅ according to Noah. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC) ✅ according to Noah. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC) ✅ according to Noah. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Environmental steering
 * Beta Drift
 * Interaction with the mid-latitude westerlies
 * Structural changes
 * Wobbles imparted by mesovortices
 * Motion changes caused by ERCs
 * Center relocations

Classification
✅ According to Noah. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Intensity classifications
 * Needs a better summary
 * Naming

Formation regions and warning centers

 * Major basins
 * Unusual formation areas
 * Mid-lats
 * Near Equator
 * SATL
 * Met Sea & Black Sea
 * SE Pacific, Great Lakes

Preparations

 * Watches and Warnings
 * History of TC watches/warnings
 * Summary of Western Hem watches/warnings
 * Summary of Western Pacific watches/warnings
 * Summary of South Pacific watches/warnings
 * Summary of Indian Ocean watches/warnings
 * Mention of military advisories
 * Evacuations
 * Islands
 * Shelters
 * Hospitals and nursing homes
 * Military assets
 * Home preparations
 * Hurricane-proof building
 * Grocery store/panic buying
 * Supply kits
 * Generators
 * Boarding up windows and sandbags
 * Insurance
 * Government preparations
 * Seawalls
 * Levees

✅ Impacts

 * Weather/Events that TCs cause or worsen
 * ✅ According to Noah <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Winds
 * Lightning activity
 * Wildfires
 * Rainfall
 * Floods
 * Snow
 * Storm Surge
 * Tornadoes/Waterspouts
 * High waves / Rip Currents
 * Effects to People
 * ✅ According to Noah. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Global overview
 * Damage
 * Agriculture
 * Public infrastructure
 * General statement on other items destroyed
 * Deaths
 * Environmental Effects
 * ✅ According to Noah. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oil Spills(+Marsh loss) (+Algae blooms)  (+ chemical release)
 * Chemical/Toxic material spills (Metal polluted river)
 * Geographical - Land created/destroyed, landslides/mudslides, erosion (+mercury contamination)
 * Ecological - Wildlife and forests
 * Hydrologic - Desert/Drought regions (already covered)
 * Oceanic (already covered)
 * Atmospheric (already covered)

Response

 * Civilian Response
 * Impacted Government response
 * Other Government responses
 * Organizational responses

Climatology and records

 * As a novice on this topic, I find this section heading unclear. With all the other section headings, I kind of know what to expect (I like the standard section headings so far used in the article like Types, Impacts, Responses...). A section heading called "climatology and records", with a sub-heading called "climate change" is unclear. EMsmile (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that better? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Hurricane Noah, you've changed the section heading from "climatology and records" to "climatology"? I still don't find that clear. I looked up what climatology is: "Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, "place, zone"; and -λογία, -logia) or climate science is the scientific study of Earth's climate, typically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of at least 30 years." As this is a main heading, it is unclear for me as a reader what I should be expecting there. The other main section headings are fairly clear but could this one be changed into a "plain language" word? Also, should it not come earlier in the structure?:

1	Background 2	Classification and naming 3	Intensity 4	Structure 5	Movement 6	Formation regions and warning centers 7	Preparations 8	Impacts 9	Response 10	Climatology 11	Observation and forecasting 12	Related cyclone types
 * How about "Effects of climate" or something like that? "Interactions between climate and tropical cyclones"? EMsmile (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The section is quite literally meant to be taken as tropical cyclone climatology. It isn't related to the effects of climate or interactions between climate and TCs. It's the averages of activity that occur each year. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I feel super dumb here, but perhaps other readers who are non-experts like me feel similarly. Is it possible to use a headline that is clearer to non-experts than "climatology"? Maybe "Averages of activity"? Also if it's not related to climate change then why does it have a sub-heading called "10.1 Influence of climate change"? Sorry if this is a really dumb question, please don't give up on me. Others might not understand it either. :-) EMsmile (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally feel that climatology is the best word to be used here, since as you have already mentioned it is weather conditions (In this case TC's) averaged over a period of at least 30 years. Jason Rees (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Observation and forecasting
✅ Looks sufficient to me. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC) ✅ According to Noah. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Observation
 * Forecasting
 * Track forecasting
 * Intensity forecasting
 * Rainfall forecasting
 * Storm surge forecasting
 * Geopotential height
 * Low-level/850 hPa
 * 700 hpa
 * Mid-level/500 hPa
 * 300 hpa
 * Upper-level/200 hPa

Related cyclone types

 * Extratropical cyclone
 * Subtropical cyclone

❌ Popular culture (Removed)

 * US
 * Other countries (as material exists)

Discussion
We need to make a proper outline of this article in order to bring in every point that needs discussed. I started it off here by reorganizing topics under appropriate sections and adding in some items, but there is likely more items. For example, movement as it is has nothing to do with structure so I split it out into its own section and also added Interaction with the mid-latitude westerlies underneath it as that has to do with movement rather than structure. If you have anything specific that you think needs discussed, please add it to this outline. Intensity is the only one I have thought out thoroughly so it is already well-developed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 11:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate your input on what should be discussed here as well. There's quite a bit that needs to be added to this article. I already did some restructuring and added in some new content. Everything that has a source attached to it currently will be added into the article sometime this week. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 13:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't have much time to engage (trying to save Antarctica's star, and still not at full health), but some thoughts:
 * The article is at around 9000 words, so we should think about deleting stuff if we want to add stuff to make sure readers don't have to wade through details.
 * I'm not sure we need the last two sections (pop culture / notable storms). Both of these sections would be a magnet for trivia and systemic bias towards the US. Notable storms can be mentioned in other sections, if they are sufficiently notable. If they don't naturally roll into the prose, should we have them. The notable storm section as is, is too wordy in my opinion, and mostly based on specialist sources about specific storms (is there an overview about notable storms we could use instead)
 * I think in general, we could do with a large-scale switch to overview sources. There must be good post-graduate textbooks to use. What structure do they use? Which aspects do they omit, because it's too much detail
 * The words "climate cycle" have fallen out of fashion, as most modes of variability aren't that periodic. Rossby and Kelvin waves aren't really taking place on climate time-scales (at least, when they're in the atmosphere), so that doesn't fit. Does "background conditions" work as a heading instead? Femke (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with eliminating pop culture and notable TCs. Given this article is 55k prose, we still have a ways to go in terms of expansion without making the article too large. Many articles are much larger than this without having issues with size. We need not have haste in eliminating things to keep the size low as tropical cyclone is a broad topic with many aspects that need to be discussed. We need to provide an overview of many different subtopics of tropical cyclone, which means we need to keep almost everything we have (outside of what you mention removing) while adding additional material so we cover all important aspects. The scope of tropical cyclone should justify having an article in excess of 60k bytes for prose size. If it's too large after we are done rewriting it, we can always choose bits to trim at that point. I feel like we need to mention TCs with significant records (rainfall, damage, deaths, etc..) within the article itself, but we don't need to cover all of the records or all of the storms we currently cover. Those two changes in and of themselves would free up some room. I'm not using climate cycles as a heading, but more of a thought to guide my research. It's just going to be a paragraph explaining the four items that fall underneath it. The problem with textbooks is that they aren't going to go into detail about more complex subtopics and current research like we need, such as the intensity metrics and tools for assessing intensity. Would you be okay with me removing pop culture as soon as I get a chance? I want to leave notable TCs section alone for now and worry about it later. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 18:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear, I think the intensity section needs to be finished as I outlined above. Structure, preps, impacts, and response are in definite need of expansion. Elsewhere, there may need to be minor adjustments (like forecasting could use a few sentences about other types of forecasts). <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In terms of TCs to mention by topics:
 * Typhoon Forrest - Explosive deepening (Intensity)
 * Hurricane Patricia - Explosive intensification/Extreme observed wind intensity (Intensity) -Needs additional work
 * Typhoon Tip - Largest TC (Structure)/Extreme observed pressure intensity (Intensity) -Needs additional work at intensity
 * TS Marco '08 - Smallest TC (Structure)
 * Typhoons Carmen ('60) and Winney ('97) - largest eye (Structure)
 * Hurricane Wilma - smallest eye (Structure)
 * Hurricane/Typhoon John - Longest distance travelled/longest lasting (Movement)
 * Hurricane Ivan - most tornadoes (Impact)
 * Bhola cyclone - Deadliest TC (Impact)
 * Hurricanes Katrina and Harvey - tied as the costliest TCs (Impact)
 * Cyclone Hyacinthe - highest rainfall (Impact)
 * Cyclone Mahina - highest storm surge (Impact)
 * These mentions should equate to around 200 words or so throughout the article instead of the 900+ that we have now. These are referencing global records only rather than including individual basin records, which is why we have such a wordy section currently. I believe focusing on individual basins has led to UNDUE coverage in that section. If we eliminate the notable TCs section, we can mention these storms throughout the article in their appropriate topic sections. Also note that I don't think we need to cover every TC record here either as that would also be UNDUE. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a plan!
 * About article lenght. WP:Articlesize sometimes allows for slightly longer articles: the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. I think the scope here is easily captured in subarticles, so I would loosely aim for the 50k/8,000 words. I think 8,000 words works well for articles like this because
 * The longer it is, the more it needs to be updated, and we don't really have the volunteers for that.
 * Those extra words make the article less accessible for people with "normal" amounts of time / people that can't read fast. Femke (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we need to cover things here that aren't captured within subarticles. Many of them are running on 2008 era standards and aren't comprehensive in their coverage, which means the broader coverage in TC is also not comprehensive. We have subarticles that simply don't exist for some topics as well. The lack of comprehensive coverage is why 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was sent to FAR. It required a near doubling of the page size in order to become comprehensive. We obviously won't need that drastic of an increase here, but I wouldn't be surprised if we need to exceed 8000 words to be comprehensive in our coverage. The issue we have here is this article never was comprehensive and shouldn't have been an FA to begin with. I realize more words makes it harder for people to read the whole thing, but that's not a factor in the FA criteria. The article is required to be well-researched and comprehensive, neglecting no major facts or details. I think as long as we get this article up to par, keeping up with updates won't be as much of a challenge since some portions of the article don't change (simply needs new sourcing to keep it up to date). We shouldn't ever have to work to this extent on the TC article again once it is at FA. We are essentially rebuilding it from its foundations right now. Considering how much we discovered that was wrong with it, it's not surprising that nobody wanted to attempt fixing it over the past 14 years. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

'''THIS ARTICLE WILL CONTAIN DUPLICATE MATERIAL UNTIL ALL STORMS ON THE ABOVE LIST THAT ARE ALREADY PRESENT IN THE ARTICLE ARE MENTIONED OUTSIDE THE NOTABLE STORMS SECTION! THE ONES NOT YET MENTIONED INCLUDE TIP, PATRICIA, JOHN, AND MARCO. THE STRUCK NAMES ARE CURRENT DUPLICATES. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE DUPLICATE MENTIONS IN THE MEANTIME. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT.''' Sorry for the caps and bolding, but I wanted it to be highly visible. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Removed the notable TCs section since all four of those storms were mentioned. The rest of the storms on the list were not in this article and will be added in the future. Keep in mind that text may need some additional reworking, but the mentions are there. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 23:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the wording for the mentions will be adjusted later on when I complete the additional text, but is the article starting to look better? I removed notable tropical cyclones and pop culture today. I made a sizeable addition to impact that summarizes the impact of tropical cyclones by region (thanks to Hurricanehink for his efforts in writing up the article from which I brought the lead over) without being too lengthy (basically an addition of two paragraphs there; not bad considering the article being summarized is over 200k bytes long). That made this article just under 8300 words/54k bytes prose. That being said, all the big removals are done and almost only additions remain. Expect this article to expand a decent amount with additions to preps, structure, and response. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 00:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I intend to get back on this sometime in the second half of June. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023
Change grammar, to remove comma and replace with full stop, and place an and at the end of a list. Passage copied below with area in need of changes highlighted with asterisks:

Several factors are required for these thunderstorms to develop further, including sea surface temperatures of around 27 °C (81 °F) and low vertical wind shear surrounding the system,[37][38] atmospheric instability, high humidity in the lower to middle levels of the troposphere, enough Coriolis force to develop a low-pressure center, ***and*** a pre-existing low-level focus or disturbance,***replace comma with full stop***[38] There is a limit on tropical cyclone intensity which is strongly related to the water temperatures along its path.[39] and upper-level divergence.[40] An average of 86 tropical cyclones of tropical storm intensity form annually worldwide. Of those, 47 reach strength higher than 119 km/h (74 mph), and 20 become intense tropical cyclones (at least Category 3 intensity on the Saffir–Simpson scale).[41] Adamsmith142 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, thank you for the suggestions. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Tropical depression vs tropical storm
According to 2023 Atlantic hurricane season, there have been 21 tropical depressions so far this year in the Atlantic, but only 20 tropical storms. I came here to find out what the difference is, but nothing in this article explains the difference. Nosferattus (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In the Atlantic, a tropical cyclone with winds below than 34 kn are called "tropical depressions", and those with winds above that threshold but below hurricane-force are called "tropical storms". In counts of storm activity, tropical storms also count as tropical depressions (as do hurricanes and major hurricanes). Since the terminology used to differentiate storms by wind speed varies globally, details are elaborated upon in the article tropical cyclone scales. However, I did add a short blurb at the end of the §Classification section of this article to provide some clarification. — TheAustinMan (Talk ⬩ Edits) 23:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed "further reading" list
I've removed the "further reading" list as I don't think it adds any value. It would have to be curated regularly and also it's currently US centric:
 * Barnes, Jay. Fifteen Hurricanes That Changed the Carolinas: Powerful Storms, Climate Change, and What We Do Next (University of North Carolina Press, 2022) online review
 * Vecchi, Gabriel A., et al. "Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century." Nature communications 12.1 (2021): 1–9. online
 * Weinkle, Jessica, et al. "Normalized hurricane damage in the continental United States 1900–2017." Nature Sustainability 1.12 (2018): 808–813. online EMsmile (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Made some changes to the structure
I've made some changes to the structure. My biggest change was that I dissolved the "background" section as I felt that it was not needed and in any case ill-defined. Where would you draw the lines for a "background" section? It could talk about cyclones in general, storms, weather, climate, history and so forth. I didn't delete the content that was there but moved it to better places.

Instead, I have created a section on "definition and terminology". I find in many Wikipedia articles (like this one as well), the first paragraph of the lead talks a lot about terminology but the main article doesn't have a section for it. I think it's better to have a dedicated section for it and then not waste so much valuable space in the first paragraph of the lead on this topic. Also for this lead, I would suggest condensing the info that is currently in the first paragraph of the lead about terminology. And rather put there information that is highly important and relevant for the readers. EMsmile (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Interlink better with cyclone article?
I am surprised we don't interlink better with the parent article for this, i.e. cyclone. Should it be mentioned and linked at least once in the lead? And also for some sections where it might have additional information for the readers, e.g. regarding formation? So far, I find only one wikilink to cyclone and that's in this sentence: On the other hand, Tropical Cyclone Heat Potential is one of such non-conventional subsurface oceanographic parameters influencing the cyclone intensity. EMsmile (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Improving the lead
I've added a sentence about climate change to the end of the lead as I felt this was justified (it's a key question for many people: are tropical cyclones getting worse due to climate change or not). This has made the lead a bit too long now. I've therefore moved some content that was dealing with terminology from the lead to the "terminology" section. The lead is now 604 words. I think we should shrink it down to perhaps 500 words. Who has ideas and inspiration for further condensing the lead? EMsmile (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't worry about the lead much until the article is back in good shape. It would be pointless to work on it now when other areas need attention. I havent really had much time to contribute to WP for quite a while but the list of things under article outline still stands. I wouldn't focus on the lead until every topic is sufficiently covered since the lead should summarize the article. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 15:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In an ideal world, yes. But in reality, it might be a while until someone finds time to improve the main text. In the meantime, people who are reading on Wikipedia are already reading the lead (and perhaps only the lead!). Therefore, I think improving the lead is important, at any time and even before the main text is improved (or in parallel). I don't have time for either of this myself at the moment though, sadly. EMsmile (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of work to make the lead easier to understand (using the readability tool as guidance). I've also shortened it a bit. It's still a bit too long (602 words), I think it should be shrunk down to 500 words. EMsmile (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)