![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
What is the difference between the versions of September 1 and August 6? RickK 02:35, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort made by the writer of the original page, but there were many problems with it. I have reorganized it to follow current terms and practices in meteorology/climatology, and have extended it considerably. Denni 19:05, Jan 18 2004 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 16:35, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)) I've made a load of minor hacks (and rewritten the intro). I completely removed:
because its badly flawed. There are no hurricanes on the equator. The orographic wind bit is dodgy. I didn't believe the origin of the phrase "trade wind".
While I cannot lay any right to this article, I nonetheless take some pride in it.
Many of the changes you made were good ones, especially in those cases, such as the intro, where you added to existing material. However, I am a little concerned that material has simply been deleted without correction or modification - paragraphs on the cyclostrophic and geostrophic winds (while you quite correctly say that hurricanes do not form on the equator, they have been known to drift across it).
I would also expect that you would agree that disbelief is not a vaid reason on its own to change a point. "The wind blows trade," is legit - "trade" is an Old English word for path or track, which makes sense, because that is exactly how trade was (and still is) carried out.
What is it you find "dodgy" about orographic wind? As I have indicated, it is not a formally-employed meteorological term. It nonetheless describes a real meteorological event, and I can vouch for that, living, as I do, less than 30 km from the east slope of the Canadian Rockies.
The Internet is our friend. Doing an advanced search on trade or on geostrophic/cyclostrophic wind will show you that if my facts are incorrect, so are those of meteorology professors. Denni 19:10, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply, William. I'm not interested in any turf war here; this is, after all, a place of collaborative effort. We serve each other best by keeping each other honest. I'd like to keep a dialog going - I'm the first to admit that my knowledge is not complete and so I'm always open to other views. I also hate getting called out (as you might have noted), and therefore make every effort to ensure my facts are correct. Those I am not absolutely certain of, I research until I'm satisfied with their integrity. Still, things slip by; see further on the Talk:Atmospheric circulation page. Denni 18:04, Mar 12 2004 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 13:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I reverted CT's changes. Sorry. The reason was that it seemed to be introducing too much explanatory dynamics into a general purpose article. I have cut out the para he didn't like though.
In general there seems to be a confusion here between the actual winds in the world and the various mathematical approximations to the equations. The math approx is dealt with lower down (in Winds that are defined by an equilibrium of physical forces) and that seems to make sense. I don't think the section about "synoptic winds" should be doing this again, but worse... it should be about actual winds.
I also didn't like The primary motion of air is to move from higher to lower pressure. Since there is nothing to stop the air from curving to the right it curves to the right as it moves. This seems too much like the handy-wavy version of the dynamics... it starts to do this, then it does that. Atmos flow is almost always near-balanced. The geostrophic wind page seems better.
There is no third force! -- Cleon Teunissen | Talk 20:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, in the gradient wind approx there are three forces in the equations. At first, I didn't quite see the implications of that.
Gradient wind approx covers both the situations where coriolis effect and centrifugal force act in the same direction, and situations where they act in opposite directions. Of course, coriolis effect and centrifugal effect cannot actually oppose each other since both are manifestation of inertia. If they oppose each other in the calculation, then in the atmosphere there will be either centrifugal force or coriolis force, depending on the direction of the pressure gradient force. more likely depending on magnitude of pressure gradient force and velocity of the wind. --
Cleon Teunissen |
Talk 20:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A special case of gradient wind is inertial wind. In inertial wind there is no force involved. External link: Inertial flow - Balanced flow tutorial by Ryan Turkington On that webpage the period of inertial wind is given: 12 divided by the sine of the angle of the latitude gives the number of hours of the period of rotation. Close to the poles the period is nearly 12 hours. -- Cleon Teunissen | Talk 15:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The article says
The Coriolis force is not "overwhelmed"! The Coriolis effect can only cause at most one revolution per day. Other things are happening by the time there is rapid rotation. Paul Beardsell 23:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Great page but no mention of wind as an energy/power source . . .
Rossfi 11:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I just have a 1 question. Has there ever been a case where wind moved in a vertical fashion? even for a little while? You know, how wind moves circular like the Earth spinning? Angelofdeath275 19:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Microbursts would be wind moving in a verical fashion. But I am not sure this is what you are looking for.
"Wind is the rough part of a egg of air..." -- what's an "egg" of air? CSWarren 17:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this statement should occur in the article at some point prior to the first mention of Westerly or Easterly.
I just looked up in the dictionary that westerly and co. have the general meaning of "from the west" and such. There is a linguistic convention that westerly means "from the west", and possibly also a weather convention that any phrase combining a direction with a wind refers to the origin of the wind, rather than its direction of flow. Would "west wind" ordinarily be taken as a sloppy version of "westerly wind"? Does one have to explicitly say "west blowing wind" to refer to its direction of force? If you are standing in the middle of tornado wreckage and you ask someone who was bunkered down "which way was it blowing when my deck chair took flight?" and the person responds "westerly", do you then hunt to the east? I suppose the person could say "westward" in this instance.
Unless they visit answers.com, which lists westerly as a synonym to westward.
Actually, the tornado is an interesting case. I see many references in google that Tornados are refered to by point of origin, which won't necessarily correspond to the wind conditions experienced along its path. I think the term "westerly" describes not the wind itself, but the weather system that brought the wind.
I also found "westerly" attached directly to "flow" (my em.):
Fortunately, from my study of electronics I know that electrons flow negly, while holes flow posly, so I can accept this construct either way.
Final thought: there are a couple of other cases where words have become so thoroughly confused in the public mind that you can barely distinguish antonyms from synonyms: flammable/inflammable/imflammable, comprised of/comprises/composes.
MaxEnt 12:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
looking for an article/ pictures where wind is a theme of a sclpture. can you help...? Anantmeets 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone has created Wind Barbs. Any comments? Should this redirect someplace? -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
To all tha pay attention this kind of stuff, I realize that before I reverted this last edit (clearly vandalism) I had used up my 3R for the day. But it was such a blatent act I couldn't stand it. -- Amaraiel 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
My concern is the name we should give to this article, I see that wind gust has many hits on google. -- Cenarium ( talk) 17:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
WP provides for merging the attribution histories of articles whose content is merged, but not for automatically making obvious when every passage was part of the content of WP. In this case, the entries
and
and
(listed consecutively within the middle group of those three) could give the impression that the content shown in those revisions disappeared from WP for much the time periods between those groups of entries, only to reappear in the last few days. Those revisions were made to
Gust (wind) (and retained there, until April, without interruption) rather than
Wind, but have just been merged into
Wind's edit history.
--
Jerzy•
t
06:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
What causes Winds? And what are Horse Latitudes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.245.112.243 ( talk) 00:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
The fist sentance says: Wind is the ruf horizontal movement. Is is maybe supposed to be rough? not ruf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkadelica ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll give you guys until mid-May before downgrading this article to Start. It needs inline sources, and has been tagged for over a week now. Thegreatdr 10:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear god, there are some disgusting grammatical errors, and complete lack of punctuation in some of the sentences on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkadelica ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm rather new to Wikipedia, and am not well versed with all the editing "tricks" out there. When I brought up this article, the first line defined wind as "...horizontal movment of air caused by Howard Stern's asshole..." However, when I went to edit the page to correct that line, the vandalism doesn't appear in the editing window. Hope someone smarter than me knows how to correct this. -Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkadelica ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
http://www.kilty.com/contrail.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkadelica ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Triple undo because of vandalizm! 84.204.40.218 ( talk) 14:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Anonymous I'de rather see some more indepth information. I feel there was not enough exaples with the explaination. It would be rather good to know more like the average electricity produce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.155.214 ( talk) 06:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think solar wind needs to somehow be included within the definition of wind. This is somewhat tricky. I attempted to define it more generally so this type of wind would be included (see a previous revision), but this definition was eroneous, since it includes things would not be considered to be wind.
The introductory section needs a serious tidy up there is lots of repetition here, presumeably by different people. I intend to work on this myself, but encourage others to also.
This article misses completely a specific type of wind, the quartering winds. They are winds that come at a diagonal. These winds were important in the structure of the Centre Point Tower Sydney, Australia Thegreatdr ( talk) 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
We're down to three sections which need inline references, and the article is nearly triple the size it was on March 12. Once the inline references are added, and the references are all in a similar format, I think we could send the article through GAN. Thegreatdr ( talk) 20:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Are the catergories, Wind and Winds really different?
Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
So, if it's high from low, that means that wind is coming from places (or environments) that are hotter to the ones that are colder? Or is it vice-versa?
If I'm heating a surface on Earth, would wind come from that surface or to that surface?
Also, what about the strange sound of the wind? I'm guessing it's air molecules hitting each other. But is that so? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
193.219.64.35 (
talk)
12:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
Air is denser when it's cold, meaning there is more pressure. But that doesn't mean that high pressure areas are always colder than low pressure areas. Both high and low pressure areas have air flow associated with them, I imagine the way this works will be outlined for you in the article on cyclones
If the Earth's surface is heated, it will heat the air above it and that air will become less dense. Air from higher pressure areas will move to the lower pressure area.
The sound isn't molecules colliding and hitting each other. When changes in air pressure cause vibration of your ear drum you experience sound. Like when a drum vibrates. Its the same kind of thing, because the air pressure isn't uniform in the moving air you can experience it or the vibrations in the air things make when they themselves are hit by the wind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.9.163 ( talk) 15:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to put Kamikaze (lit. Devine Wind) on this page? Kazuhite 08:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Alize Winds? - Can somebody who knows this weather stuff add some info about Alize winds to this article? I recently went searching for details on what the Alize winds were and found very little information out there. 18:48, 4 August 2005 User:65.182.230.24 (Talk) (Alize Winds?)
With all due respect to the editors of this article, the lead is just terrible. It has very poor flow and continuity, the paragraphs (for the most part) don't have coherent topics, and it is nearly unreadable. It's as if someone reduced each paragraph of the article into a sentence, sorted them randomly, and then divided them arbitrarily into paragraphs. While that may technically meet the definition of a lead section, it makes for awful reading. The last paragraph especially seems to just be a random list of facts. What are the topics of the lead paragraphs? I would suggest:
If someone could rewrite the lead with this in mind, I think it would go a long way to making it more coherent and enjoyable to read. The rest of the article is excellent. Congratulations on the FA promotion! Kaldari ( talk) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
In the definition it should be stated that On Earth and within other planetary atmospheres, wind consists of air molecules in motion moving from a hot environment to a colder environment.
This paragraph then needs to be put right after the lines before:
The two major driving factors of large scale atmospheric circulation are the differential heating between the equator and the poles, which causes the jet stream and the associated climatological mid-latitude westerlies, polar easterlies, and the trade winds, and the rotation of the planet (Coriolis effect), which causes the circular motion of air around areas of high and low pressure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.217.217 ( talk) 15:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Some images (similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occluded_front) need to be implemented. Will work on it and upload it very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.217.217 ( talk) 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is chock-full of errors and is not well structured. Anybody want to help fix it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I've made a start William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think most everything on solar wind and planetary wind should be removed. They are totally different phenomenon, and just because they have the word wind in common doesn't mean they should be included in this article. Hatnotes, or the current disamb link, should be sufficient. - Atmoz ( talk) 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW (since we're all here) wiki as a whole is full of rubbish idealised pix of hadley/ferrel/polar cells. Atmospheric circulation is a prime offender, though it does have my beautiful pic of 500 hPa vertical motion. What I suppose I mean is that understanding of dynamical met, as expressed in the wiki articles, is poor William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I find the section about sea and land breezes too difficult to understand. I would propose to change the text to:
In coastal regions, sea breezes and land breezes can be important factors in a location's prevailing winds. Sea breezes usually occur at night due to the fact that a low pressure zone is formed above land, and wind is sucked towards the land from the sea. At nighttime, the sea remains warmer (as it does not cool down as quick as land), hereby creating a low pressure zone over the sea. As a result, the wind is sucked towards the sea.
Added a wind speed section, made power section more clear. Also added 2 images; see the article at 28 oktober (current revision as of writing) Please don't remove, but improve setion where needed. KVDP ( talk) 12:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
91.182.189.46 ( talk) 13:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The wind speeds at 0m altitude are not shown in an image, this needs to be added, to be able to have a picture that shows basic wind speeds on the ground; or how much it is for a person (the difference between 0-1,8m will probably not make much of a difference) 91.182.189.46 ( talk) 13:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm not normally one to complain about things, and this definitely is a good article, better than the majority in WP. However, having come here from the main page, and as with other editors above, I am surprised that this made it through FAC as the lead definitely has issues. Sadly I am too busy to coherently correct them myself so will just make a note of it here and freely label myself as "unconstructive".
Two examples from a brief look:
Thanks — SteveRwanda ( talk) 11:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to add wind character scale ( based on direction with respect to land ( shore). The types are :
It is used in windsurfing. -- Adam majewski ( talk) 13:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I am surprised that the Fujita and the Enhanced Fujita scales are not in the table of winds speeds. You got hurricane wind speeds, but not tornadoes.
Reddwarf2956 ( talk) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised the 301 mph wind speed measured in the Bridge Creek/Moore tornado in 1999 wasn't even mentioned. I didn't think a hurricane-tornado bias existed! 199.79.170.215 ( talk) 23:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The EF scale is only used in the US and Wikipedia is global. The original Fujita scale must be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.190.38 ( talk) 21:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The following sentence is unclear: "The westerlies can be particularly strong, especially in the southern hemisphere, where there is less land in the middle latitudes to cause the flow pattern to amplify, which slows the winds down." To me it implies that land causes the flow pattern to amplify, and amplification of the flow pattern slows the wind. This seems contradictory as my first instinct is that flow pattern amplification would intensify wind, such that clearer phrasing might be: "The westerlies can be particularly strong, especially in the southern hemisphere where there is less land in the middle latitudes, which causes the flow pattern and wind speed to amplify." Or does flow pattern amplification actually for some reason decelerate winds? If so, it might be helpful to add a bit more information about flow pattern amplification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainemce ( talk • contribs) 06:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The following passage in the article is unintelligable: tits are humongus sexy things — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.131.91 ( talk) 16:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is how I understand it.
Winds are categorized as geostrophic if in the dynamics the following two factors are vastly dominant: the pressure gradient force, and the coriolis effect. In the case of northern hemisphere winds circling a low pressure area, the pressure gradient acts in centripetal direction. (I will call the full circle of winds around the low pressure area 'the geostrophic flow') The coriolis effect tends to deflect any flow to the right. When there is no contraction of the geostrophic flow then there is an region of dynamic equilibrium, where the pressure gradient force is enough to maintain the same deflection to the left, but not strong enough to cause contraction of the geostrophic flow.
In regions where there is a surplus of pressure gradient force there will be a surplus of deflection to the left, which is a contraction of the geostrophic flow. This contraction is deflected to the right due to the coriolis effect, increasing the velocity of the wind. At small diameters of the geostrophic flow the coriolis effect becomes negligable, but contraction down a pressure gradient will still increase the angular velocity in the center.
There is no third force!
The coriolis effect deflects all flows to the right, therefore the direction in which it acts varies with the direction of the flow. In the absence of contraction the coriolis effect is what counteracts flow down the pressure gradient. As soon as there is contraction it is deflected to the right. --
Cleon Teunissen |
Talk 20:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Another remark: in the case of geostrophic flow, the pressure gradient force can in particular regions be stronger than a centrifugally acting coriolis effect, the strengh of the coriolis effect is proportional to the velocity of the wind, and if there is not enough velocity then that's it. But I think the opposite will occur in very special circumstances only. It is pressure gradient force that starts air moving in the first place, so only input from outside could possibly whip up winds to a velocity where a centrifugally acting coriolis effect is stronger than the pressure gradient force. The engine of the process is the pressure gradient force; when the geostrophic flow loses kinetic energy through friction, the geostrophic flow will contract, releasing energy that is instantly converted to kinetic energy. I learned the use of flow-of-energy to keep track of the causal chain from an article by Anders Persson.
A 374 KB article on the coriolis force by Anders Persson
The pressure gradient force and the coriolis effect act in a fundamentally different way. The pressure gradient force is the engine, the coriolis effect converts energy (and friction dissipates the energy). Using the expression 'coriolis force' has the disadvantage of disguising the difference between force and coriolis effect. --
Cleon Teunissen |
Talk 21:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Third remark. In the article it is stated:
In a non-rotating environmont objects will move in a straight line when there is no force being exerted, the well-known inertia. However, the solid Earth plus atmosphere is a rotating environment, and because of that the inertial properties of the air masses of the atmosphere are governed by orbital dynamics, the dynamics of mass orbiting the axis of the Earth. Inertial motion of atmospheric air masses is a curved motion with respect to the coordinate system that is co-rotating with earth. Air masses that do not move are in dynamic equilibrium, but air masses that are in motion curve away to the right (on the northern hemisphere).
So the usual thinking that mass tends to move in straight lines does not apply in the case of atmospheric motions on the rotating Earth.
Geostrophic flow away from a high pressure area is a very interesting situation. Being deflected to the right, and not being free to move outward indefinately, it will start to flow clockwise. The clockwise flow curves to the right, the local direction of inertial motion.
Any flow that rotates clockwise with a period of 12 hours will be entirely inertial motion. A clockwise atmospheric circulation with a period of 12 hours will be stable on its own; any pressure gradient would disrupt it. A clockwise circulation with a period of 12 hours is in dynamic equilibrium with respect to the inertial system it is orbiting in. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SineBot (
talk •
contribs)
16:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wind has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[1] The Bible, John 3:5-8 [Holman Christian Standard Bible], where Jesus compares the Holy Spirit to activities of the wind. v5 Jesus answered, “I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit,[b] he cannot enter the kingdom of God. v6 Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit. v7 Do not be amazed that I told you that you[c] must be born again. v8 The wind[d] blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” 67.172.154.8 ( talk) 13:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Wind. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Wind. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Wind. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ofcm.gov/fmh-1/pdf/M-APNDXA.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://jas.fass.org/content/40/1/161.full.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Wind. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Wind. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Wind. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://sites.google.com/view/561build/home/roof-wind-hail?authuser=0When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
What is the difference between the versions of September 1 and August 6? RickK 02:35, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort made by the writer of the original page, but there were many problems with it. I have reorganized it to follow current terms and practices in meteorology/climatology, and have extended it considerably. Denni 19:05, Jan 18 2004 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 16:35, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)) I've made a load of minor hacks (and rewritten the intro). I completely removed:
because its badly flawed. There are no hurricanes on the equator. The orographic wind bit is dodgy. I didn't believe the origin of the phrase "trade wind".
While I cannot lay any right to this article, I nonetheless take some pride in it.
Many of the changes you made were good ones, especially in those cases, such as the intro, where you added to existing material. However, I am a little concerned that material has simply been deleted without correction or modification - paragraphs on the cyclostrophic and geostrophic winds (while you quite correctly say that hurricanes do not form on the equator, they have been known to drift across it).
I would also expect that you would agree that disbelief is not a vaid reason on its own to change a point. "The wind blows trade," is legit - "trade" is an Old English word for path or track, which makes sense, because that is exactly how trade was (and still is) carried out.
What is it you find "dodgy" about orographic wind? As I have indicated, it is not a formally-employed meteorological term. It nonetheless describes a real meteorological event, and I can vouch for that, living, as I do, less than 30 km from the east slope of the Canadian Rockies.
The Internet is our friend. Doing an advanced search on trade or on geostrophic/cyclostrophic wind will show you that if my facts are incorrect, so are those of meteorology professors. Denni 19:10, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply, William. I'm not interested in any turf war here; this is, after all, a place of collaborative effort. We serve each other best by keeping each other honest. I'd like to keep a dialog going - I'm the first to admit that my knowledge is not complete and so I'm always open to other views. I also hate getting called out (as you might have noted), and therefore make every effort to ensure my facts are correct. Those I am not absolutely certain of, I research until I'm satisfied with their integrity. Still, things slip by; see further on the Talk:Atmospheric circulation page. Denni 18:04, Mar 12 2004 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 13:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I reverted CT's changes. Sorry. The reason was that it seemed to be introducing too much explanatory dynamics into a general purpose article. I have cut out the para he didn't like though.
In general there seems to be a confusion here between the actual winds in the world and the various mathematical approximations to the equations. The math approx is dealt with lower down (in Winds that are defined by an equilibrium of physical forces) and that seems to make sense. I don't think the section about "synoptic winds" should be doing this again, but worse... it should be about actual winds.
I also didn't like The primary motion of air is to move from higher to lower pressure. Since there is nothing to stop the air from curving to the right it curves to the right as it moves. This seems too much like the handy-wavy version of the dynamics... it starts to do this, then it does that. Atmos flow is almost always near-balanced. The geostrophic wind page seems better.
There is no third force! -- Cleon Teunissen | Talk 20:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, in the gradient wind approx there are three forces in the equations. At first, I didn't quite see the implications of that.
Gradient wind approx covers both the situations where coriolis effect and centrifugal force act in the same direction, and situations where they act in opposite directions. Of course, coriolis effect and centrifugal effect cannot actually oppose each other since both are manifestation of inertia. If they oppose each other in the calculation, then in the atmosphere there will be either centrifugal force or coriolis force, depending on the direction of the pressure gradient force. more likely depending on magnitude of pressure gradient force and velocity of the wind. --
Cleon Teunissen |
Talk 20:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A special case of gradient wind is inertial wind. In inertial wind there is no force involved. External link: Inertial flow - Balanced flow tutorial by Ryan Turkington On that webpage the period of inertial wind is given: 12 divided by the sine of the angle of the latitude gives the number of hours of the period of rotation. Close to the poles the period is nearly 12 hours. -- Cleon Teunissen | Talk 15:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The article says
The Coriolis force is not "overwhelmed"! The Coriolis effect can only cause at most one revolution per day. Other things are happening by the time there is rapid rotation. Paul Beardsell 23:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Great page but no mention of wind as an energy/power source . . .
Rossfi 11:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I just have a 1 question. Has there ever been a case where wind moved in a vertical fashion? even for a little while? You know, how wind moves circular like the Earth spinning? Angelofdeath275 19:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Microbursts would be wind moving in a verical fashion. But I am not sure this is what you are looking for.
"Wind is the rough part of a egg of air..." -- what's an "egg" of air? CSWarren 17:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this statement should occur in the article at some point prior to the first mention of Westerly or Easterly.
I just looked up in the dictionary that westerly and co. have the general meaning of "from the west" and such. There is a linguistic convention that westerly means "from the west", and possibly also a weather convention that any phrase combining a direction with a wind refers to the origin of the wind, rather than its direction of flow. Would "west wind" ordinarily be taken as a sloppy version of "westerly wind"? Does one have to explicitly say "west blowing wind" to refer to its direction of force? If you are standing in the middle of tornado wreckage and you ask someone who was bunkered down "which way was it blowing when my deck chair took flight?" and the person responds "westerly", do you then hunt to the east? I suppose the person could say "westward" in this instance.
Unless they visit answers.com, which lists westerly as a synonym to westward.
Actually, the tornado is an interesting case. I see many references in google that Tornados are refered to by point of origin, which won't necessarily correspond to the wind conditions experienced along its path. I think the term "westerly" describes not the wind itself, but the weather system that brought the wind.
I also found "westerly" attached directly to "flow" (my em.):
Fortunately, from my study of electronics I know that electrons flow negly, while holes flow posly, so I can accept this construct either way.
Final thought: there are a couple of other cases where words have become so thoroughly confused in the public mind that you can barely distinguish antonyms from synonyms: flammable/inflammable/imflammable, comprised of/comprises/composes.
MaxEnt 12:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
looking for an article/ pictures where wind is a theme of a sclpture. can you help...? Anantmeets 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone has created Wind Barbs. Any comments? Should this redirect someplace? -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
To all tha pay attention this kind of stuff, I realize that before I reverted this last edit (clearly vandalism) I had used up my 3R for the day. But it was such a blatent act I couldn't stand it. -- Amaraiel 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
My concern is the name we should give to this article, I see that wind gust has many hits on google. -- Cenarium ( talk) 17:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
WP provides for merging the attribution histories of articles whose content is merged, but not for automatically making obvious when every passage was part of the content of WP. In this case, the entries
and
and
(listed consecutively within the middle group of those three) could give the impression that the content shown in those revisions disappeared from WP for much the time periods between those groups of entries, only to reappear in the last few days. Those revisions were made to
Gust (wind) (and retained there, until April, without interruption) rather than
Wind, but have just been merged into
Wind's edit history.
--
Jerzy•
t
06:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
What causes Winds? And what are Horse Latitudes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.245.112.243 ( talk) 00:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
The fist sentance says: Wind is the ruf horizontal movement. Is is maybe supposed to be rough? not ruf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkadelica ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll give you guys until mid-May before downgrading this article to Start. It needs inline sources, and has been tagged for over a week now. Thegreatdr 10:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear god, there are some disgusting grammatical errors, and complete lack of punctuation in some of the sentences on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkadelica ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm rather new to Wikipedia, and am not well versed with all the editing "tricks" out there. When I brought up this article, the first line defined wind as "...horizontal movment of air caused by Howard Stern's asshole..." However, when I went to edit the page to correct that line, the vandalism doesn't appear in the editing window. Hope someone smarter than me knows how to correct this. -Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkadelica ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
http://www.kilty.com/contrail.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkadelica ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Triple undo because of vandalizm! 84.204.40.218 ( talk) 14:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Anonymous I'de rather see some more indepth information. I feel there was not enough exaples with the explaination. It would be rather good to know more like the average electricity produce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.155.214 ( talk) 06:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think solar wind needs to somehow be included within the definition of wind. This is somewhat tricky. I attempted to define it more generally so this type of wind would be included (see a previous revision), but this definition was eroneous, since it includes things would not be considered to be wind.
The introductory section needs a serious tidy up there is lots of repetition here, presumeably by different people. I intend to work on this myself, but encourage others to also.
This article misses completely a specific type of wind, the quartering winds. They are winds that come at a diagonal. These winds were important in the structure of the Centre Point Tower Sydney, Australia Thegreatdr ( talk) 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
We're down to three sections which need inline references, and the article is nearly triple the size it was on March 12. Once the inline references are added, and the references are all in a similar format, I think we could send the article through GAN. Thegreatdr ( talk) 20:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Are the catergories, Wind and Winds really different?
Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
So, if it's high from low, that means that wind is coming from places (or environments) that are hotter to the ones that are colder? Or is it vice-versa?
If I'm heating a surface on Earth, would wind come from that surface or to that surface?
Also, what about the strange sound of the wind? I'm guessing it's air molecules hitting each other. But is that so? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
193.219.64.35 (
talk)
12:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
Air is denser when it's cold, meaning there is more pressure. But that doesn't mean that high pressure areas are always colder than low pressure areas. Both high and low pressure areas have air flow associated with them, I imagine the way this works will be outlined for you in the article on cyclones
If the Earth's surface is heated, it will heat the air above it and that air will become less dense. Air from higher pressure areas will move to the lower pressure area.
The sound isn't molecules colliding and hitting each other. When changes in air pressure cause vibration of your ear drum you experience sound. Like when a drum vibrates. Its the same kind of thing, because the air pressure isn't uniform in the moving air you can experience it or the vibrations in the air things make when they themselves are hit by the wind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.9.163 ( talk) 15:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to put Kamikaze (lit. Devine Wind) on this page? Kazuhite 08:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Alize Winds? - Can somebody who knows this weather stuff add some info about Alize winds to this article? I recently went searching for details on what the Alize winds were and found very little information out there. 18:48, 4 August 2005 User:65.182.230.24 (Talk) (Alize Winds?)
With all due respect to the editors of this article, the lead is just terrible. It has very poor flow and continuity, the paragraphs (for the most part) don't have coherent topics, and it is nearly unreadable. It's as if someone reduced each paragraph of the article into a sentence, sorted them randomly, and then divided them arbitrarily into paragraphs. While that may technically meet the definition of a lead section, it makes for awful reading. The last paragraph especially seems to just be a random list of facts. What are the topics of the lead paragraphs? I would suggest:
If someone could rewrite the lead with this in mind, I think it would go a long way to making it more coherent and enjoyable to read. The rest of the article is excellent. Congratulations on the FA promotion! Kaldari ( talk) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
In the definition it should be stated that On Earth and within other planetary atmospheres, wind consists of air molecules in motion moving from a hot environment to a colder environment.
This paragraph then needs to be put right after the lines before:
The two major driving factors of large scale atmospheric circulation are the differential heating between the equator and the poles, which causes the jet stream and the associated climatological mid-latitude westerlies, polar easterlies, and the trade winds, and the rotation of the planet (Coriolis effect), which causes the circular motion of air around areas of high and low pressure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.217.217 ( talk) 15:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Some images (similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occluded_front) need to be implemented. Will work on it and upload it very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.217.217 ( talk) 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is chock-full of errors and is not well structured. Anybody want to help fix it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I've made a start William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think most everything on solar wind and planetary wind should be removed. They are totally different phenomenon, and just because they have the word wind in common doesn't mean they should be included in this article. Hatnotes, or the current disamb link, should be sufficient. - Atmoz ( talk) 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW (since we're all here) wiki as a whole is full of rubbish idealised pix of hadley/ferrel/polar cells. Atmospheric circulation is a prime offender, though it does have my beautiful pic of 500 hPa vertical motion. What I suppose I mean is that understanding of dynamical met, as expressed in the wiki articles, is poor William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I find the section about sea and land breezes too difficult to understand. I would propose to change the text to:
In coastal regions, sea breezes and land breezes can be important factors in a location's prevailing winds. Sea breezes usually occur at night due to the fact that a low pressure zone is formed above land, and wind is sucked towards the land from the sea. At nighttime, the sea remains warmer (as it does not cool down as quick as land), hereby creating a low pressure zone over the sea. As a result, the wind is sucked towards the sea.
Added a wind speed section, made power section more clear. Also added 2 images; see the article at 28 oktober (current revision as of writing) Please don't remove, but improve setion where needed. KVDP ( talk) 12:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
91.182.189.46 ( talk) 13:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The wind speeds at 0m altitude are not shown in an image, this needs to be added, to be able to have a picture that shows basic wind speeds on the ground; or how much it is for a person (the difference between 0-1,8m will probably not make much of a difference) 91.182.189.46 ( talk) 13:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm not normally one to complain about things, and this definitely is a good article, better than the majority in WP. However, having come here from the main page, and as with other editors above, I am surprised that this made it through FAC as the lead definitely has issues. Sadly I am too busy to coherently correct them myself so will just make a note of it here and freely label myself as "unconstructive".
Two examples from a brief look:
Thanks — SteveRwanda ( talk) 11:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to add wind character scale ( based on direction with respect to land ( shore). The types are :
It is used in windsurfing. -- Adam majewski ( talk) 13:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I am surprised that the Fujita and the Enhanced Fujita scales are not in the table of winds speeds. You got hurricane wind speeds, but not tornadoes.
Reddwarf2956 ( talk) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised the 301 mph wind speed measured in the Bridge Creek/Moore tornado in 1999 wasn't even mentioned. I didn't think a hurricane-tornado bias existed! 199.79.170.215 ( talk) 23:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The EF scale is only used in the US and Wikipedia is global. The original Fujita scale must be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.190.38 ( talk) 21:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The following sentence is unclear: "The westerlies can be particularly strong, especially in the southern hemisphere, where there is less land in the middle latitudes to cause the flow pattern to amplify, which slows the winds down." To me it implies that land causes the flow pattern to amplify, and amplification of the flow pattern slows the wind. This seems contradictory as my first instinct is that flow pattern amplification would intensify wind, such that clearer phrasing might be: "The westerlies can be particularly strong, especially in the southern hemisphere where there is less land in the middle latitudes, which causes the flow pattern and wind speed to amplify." Or does flow pattern amplification actually for some reason decelerate winds? If so, it might be helpful to add a bit more information about flow pattern amplification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainemce ( talk • contribs) 06:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The following passage in the article is unintelligable: tits are humongus sexy things — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.131.91 ( talk) 16:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is how I understand it.
Winds are categorized as geostrophic if in the dynamics the following two factors are vastly dominant: the pressure gradient force, and the coriolis effect. In the case of northern hemisphere winds circling a low pressure area, the pressure gradient acts in centripetal direction. (I will call the full circle of winds around the low pressure area 'the geostrophic flow') The coriolis effect tends to deflect any flow to the right. When there is no contraction of the geostrophic flow then there is an region of dynamic equilibrium, where the pressure gradient force is enough to maintain the same deflection to the left, but not strong enough to cause contraction of the geostrophic flow.
In regions where there is a surplus of pressure gradient force there will be a surplus of deflection to the left, which is a contraction of the geostrophic flow. This contraction is deflected to the right due to the coriolis effect, increasing the velocity of the wind. At small diameters of the geostrophic flow the coriolis effect becomes negligable, but contraction down a pressure gradient will still increase the angular velocity in the center.
There is no third force!
The coriolis effect deflects all flows to the right, therefore the direction in which it acts varies with the direction of the flow. In the absence of contraction the coriolis effect is what counteracts flow down the pressure gradient. As soon as there is contraction it is deflected to the right. --
Cleon Teunissen |
Talk 20:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Another remark: in the case of geostrophic flow, the pressure gradient force can in particular regions be stronger than a centrifugally acting coriolis effect, the strengh of the coriolis effect is proportional to the velocity of the wind, and if there is not enough velocity then that's it. But I think the opposite will occur in very special circumstances only. It is pressure gradient force that starts air moving in the first place, so only input from outside could possibly whip up winds to a velocity where a centrifugally acting coriolis effect is stronger than the pressure gradient force. The engine of the process is the pressure gradient force; when the geostrophic flow loses kinetic energy through friction, the geostrophic flow will contract, releasing energy that is instantly converted to kinetic energy. I learned the use of flow-of-energy to keep track of the causal chain from an article by Anders Persson.
A 374 KB article on the coriolis force by Anders Persson
The pressure gradient force and the coriolis effect act in a fundamentally different way. The pressure gradient force is the engine, the coriolis effect converts energy (and friction dissipates the energy). Using the expression 'coriolis force' has the disadvantage of disguising the difference between force and coriolis effect. --
Cleon Teunissen |
Talk 21:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Third remark. In the article it is stated:
In a non-rotating environmont objects will move in a straight line when there is no force being exerted, the well-known inertia. However, the solid Earth plus atmosphere is a rotating environment, and because of that the inertial properties of the air masses of the atmosphere are governed by orbital dynamics, the dynamics of mass orbiting the axis of the Earth. Inertial motion of atmospheric air masses is a curved motion with respect to the coordinate system that is co-rotating with earth. Air masses that do not move are in dynamic equilibrium, but air masses that are in motion curve away to the right (on the northern hemisphere).
So the usual thinking that mass tends to move in straight lines does not apply in the case of atmospheric motions on the rotating Earth.
Geostrophic flow away from a high pressure area is a very interesting situation. Being deflected to the right, and not being free to move outward indefinately, it will start to flow clockwise. The clockwise flow curves to the right, the local direction of inertial motion.
Any flow that rotates clockwise with a period of 12 hours will be entirely inertial motion. A clockwise atmospheric circulation with a period of 12 hours will be stable on its own; any pressure gradient would disrupt it. A clockwise circulation with a period of 12 hours is in dynamic equilibrium with respect to the inertial system it is orbiting in. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SineBot (
talk •
contribs)
16:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wind has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[1] The Bible, John 3:5-8 [Holman Christian Standard Bible], where Jesus compares the Holy Spirit to activities of the wind. v5 Jesus answered, “I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit,[b] he cannot enter the kingdom of God. v6 Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit. v7 Do not be amazed that I told you that you[c] must be born again. v8 The wind[d] blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” 67.172.154.8 ( talk) 13:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Wind. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Wind. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Wind. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ofcm.gov/fmh-1/pdf/M-APNDXA.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://jas.fass.org/content/40/1/161.full.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Wind. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Wind. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Wind. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://sites.google.com/view/561build/home/roof-wind-hail?authuser=0When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)