Contents

Talk:Explosive cyclogenesis

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Non-tropical Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

classification?[edit]

Is this a specific class of nor'easter? Should merge? Potatoswatter 07:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See tropical equivalent, rapid intensification. Probably merits its own article. – Chacor 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that all "bombs" are noreasters. For one thing, the term "bomb" has been used only for storms which produce a sudden large quantity of snow while most noreasters are rainmakers. I say hold the merge for now. Tmangray 16:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bombs" are not nor'easters, but some nor'easters can be bombs, as can European windstorms and Pacific NW storms etc...It's just a name given to extratropical cyclones whose central pressure drops by a certain amount at a certain latitude in a given time, so it's a term applicable to such extratropical cyclones.Lacunae (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor'easters are some storms in a part of North America, e.g. the New England states. They may or may not be "bombs", and the "bombs" in this area may or not be nor'easters. And explosive cyclogenesis do also occur at other places. Pål Jensen (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this article should be renamed or not. Looking at the current literature it seems "Explosive cyclogenesis" is favoured as a neutral term, although the original paper describing this term Sanders and Gyakum (1980) uses the "bomb" terminology, and "bomb" may be the WP:COMMONNAME. It is described as not being a perfect meterological term,^[1] but I've not found any evidence that Explosive cyclogenesis is any more meteorological. I suspect it could even be British English vs American English although the idea seems to have emerged out of the Bergen School of Meteorology in the 1940s. Lacunae (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how reliable a source, but it looks like this is also referred to as "Bombogenesis". http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/188/ Davenport651 13:42, 21 Jan 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Explosive cyclogenesis. 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/20130419061032/http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/elim/pdf.dir/Lim_Simmonds2002.pdftohttp://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/elim/pdf.dir/Lim_Simmonds2002.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917054302/http://blog.metservice.com:80/2012/03/the-bombtohttp://blog.metservice.com/2012/03/the-bomb/

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) 07:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Explosive cyclogenesis. 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://archive.is/20130412034719/http://www.wbrz.com/videos/ryan-explains-bomb-cyclogenesis/tohttp://www.wbrz.com/videos/ryan-explains-bomb-cyclogenesis/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.metservice.com/2012/03/the-bomb/

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) 06:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Explosive cyclogenesis. 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/20110206013719/http://www.sci.u-toyama.ac.jp/earth/e-kawamura/yoshiike_kawamura_JGR.pdftohttp://www.sci.u-toyama.ac.jp/earth/e-kawamura/yoshiike_kawamura_JGR.pdf

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) 09:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LightandDark2000: Just an FYI, though you reverted the change in question so you probably thought of this also. I think the latitude component in the deepening probably limits the usefulness of the metric to only extra tropical storms, requiring only a 12 mb drop at 25N.Lacunae (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For both tropical and extratropical systems, bombing out (or explosive cyclonegenesis) requires a 24 mbar or greater pressure drop within a 24-hour period. Though I have though about just how the 2 terms seem to overlap, with the only apparent difference being the location/storm type each term is applied to. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pressure drop is now deprecated in tropical systems for rapid intensification, and such a pressure drop was 42mb in 24 hours, but the term is now defined in terms of wind speed increase. I think the two have always been distinct in regards to their definitions, though have been extensively conflated.Lacunae (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]