This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
What does hPa mean? Plinth molecular gathered 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
What does hPa mean? Plinth molecular gathered 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)