Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 September 13

= September 13 =

Tropical storms and hurricanes: codes and numbers
I had posted this on the Humanities Help Desk (by mistake). I am now moving it over here, to the Science Help Desk. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see this article (list): Tropical Storm Irma. What do all of those codes and numbers mean? For example, one storm on this list – Typhoon Irma (1985) – has a notation that reads "(T8506, 06W, Daling)". I have no idea what any of that means. Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The Growth number corresponding to this first name is 11. Aside from that, Daling's just a name, not a code. No clue about the numbers. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My first thought for "06W" was "West", i.e. it travelled 6 degrees east-west. Consider these four storms:
 * 1985, 06W
 * 1978, 19W
 * 1981, 26W
 * 1974, 34W
 * As you go down the list, each one had a net east-west difference that's greater than the one above it. That got shattered, however, with the 1971 storm, 37W, which started and ended near the Philippines.  Their starting locations aren't correlated with the numbers either (e.g. 1971 and 1985 both started vaguely near Guam), so the numbers definitely don't mean "degrees west of the antimeridian".  Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The numbers line up quite well with their chronological order in the typhoon seasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The first name is assigned by Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) in Hawaii. The second name was used when it was in "area of responsibility" of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration. Perhaps the number was assigned by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)? Rmhermen (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe ask User:HERB, who added them back in 2009, who made some edits the other day, and who is even named after such a storm. PointyOintment (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I posted on his Talk Page.  And I asked him to offer some input in this discussion.   Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe this is the 6th tropical depression of 1985 in the Western Pacific (I don't know if subtropical depressions count). Atlantic storms are called L (01L, 02L and so on), Invests (potential tropical depressions) are called 90L, 91L through 99L then 90L, 91L and so on and other basins have other letters like E for East Pacific. The "L" is probably for AtLantic. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And typhoons near the Philippines also have a Philippines name which is probably what the name in parentheses is. PAGASA might mention this. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have now moved this to the Science Help Desk. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Humans shaped by partners
How much of out genes is a results of what our mates chose as appropriate or desirable? What traits died out because no one wanted to mate with humans carrying those traits? --B8-tome (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See sexual selection. But note that only a tiny portion of genes are different between men and women (1 in 46 chromosomes is different, X versus Y, but not entirely different), and presumably only a small portion of those differences are due to sexual selection.  If you want a specific trait that died out due in part to sexual selection, perhaps being covered with body hair might qualify.  Being hairy meant they were more likely to have parasites like fleas and lice, and having those does tend to be a turn-off, because they can spread to mates.  However, the use of animal skins as clothing was also critical in this process, as otherwise hairlessness can cause death from exposure. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is very misleading. Only a small number of genes are differentially present in men and women, but a greatly larger number of genes are differentially expressed.  The Y chromosome only contains a small number of genes, but those genes control the activity of many, many other genes located on other chromosomes.  The small size of the Y chromosome really has no impact on the possibility of sexual selection. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that sexual preference is itself subject to natural selection on the very long term. While this phenomenon was discovered in exceptional cases where sexual selection leads to a net disadvantage, sexual preference will have had an effect on evolution for many hundreds of millions of years and must therefore itself have been subject to natural selection. E.g. prey animals can happen to get into a situation where there are far fewer predators than usual for many generations. Sexual selection will then determine the genetic make-up of the offspring to a larger degree than usual. But the predators will be back later so, on the long term, a sexual preference that has a similar outcome whether there are are predators or not, is the one that's going to be selected for. Count Iblis (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Proximity tends to be a huge factor in choosing a mate. It is rather uncommon for a person to mate with someone that is too far away. Instead, they tend to choose mates within the tiny group of people that they have contact with. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)