Talk:Anticyclone

Weather: Non-tropical / General Top‑importance

	Weather portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as Top-importance).

error[edit]

The following statement is false:

An anticyclone in the southern hemisphere is associated with atmospheric low pressure.

kiwiinapanic 03:11, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

III[edit]

It is worth it to save the 500Mb chart from NOAA because of the unusual anticyclone located at 48N and 120W on February 24, 2005 at 0000Z. A similar anticyclone is located close to Greenland and Eastern Canada at this time. They seem to be associated with the maritime storms which are strong at this time of the year.

It is unlikely that a similar anticyclone will be created during the summertime. It seems to be an "hibernal" (wintertime) as well as a "maritime" (of the sea or ocean) anticyclone.

I have viewed many 500MB charts over the years, but had not seen this type of anticyclone in the past. I may have overlooked this type of anticyclone, of course.

A previously uncharted "Polar low" (cyclone) has been uncovered lately and photographed from space, so a third type of high-pressure cell may well exist, too. SIGNOFF AT 0840Z February 24, 2005.

March 1st, 2001

Storms at high latitudes contain rising air that produces a third type of anticyclone when the dry air descends and settles. The anticyclones appear over the sea at high latitudes. They are tall anticyclones. They may not move from the location where they first appear. At this time, one of these types of anticyclones is located at 60"N and 30"W. (17:27GMT)

(19:08 GMT)

Erasures of certain inappropriate materials were called for. (19:12 GMT)

possible meaning[edit]

The position of each anticyclone is at about the same place on the surface as it is far above the surface (huh?!)

Perhaps this sentence is saying that anticyclones are nearly vertical in orientation, that is their position high above the surface nearly perfectly dictates where they are located on the surface. USERPAGE TALKPAGE 02:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ongoing improvements[edit]

I've started working on this article, modelling a new structure from the extratropical cyclone article. While I realise that it isn't a perfect solution, it is merely intended as a means to delve in and start working on it in an attempt to make it easy to read and follow, and basic wikification, etc.

While it looks a little messy for the moment, it does appear at the moment to be quite a large task to restructure the information into a more meaningful and clarified format, source any existing statements (the article doesn't actually have ANY direct sources at this point, apart from a fleeting reference that there's some text in it from the 1911 Britannica somewhere. It also requires the creation of a new article - Anticyclogenesis - the opposite of it's sister article Cyclogenesis. All in good time I guess. Still, at least the table of contents looks reasonable now (even if it will need some changes) :) Crimsone 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge request[edit]

As far as I can tell, an anticyclone and a high pressure area are either the same thing by two different names, or they always co-occur? Unless someone can edit the intros to give an accurate description of the difference between the two, I think they should be merged. -- Beland 18:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I hate to say it, but he's probably right. While you could argue an anticyclone is a type of high pressure, there really is no practical difference that I can come up with.

You can say that nonbalanced high pressure isn't always rotating the same... but does that really change the nature of either article!?!?! You can't have counter-rotating high pressure like you can low pressure. As much as they are different teams, they are the same concept... JeopardyTempest 07:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of making this page a redirect to high-pressure area, which is now GA class. Since nothing is referenced on this page, I fear nothing can be merged into the GA article. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, I have changed my mind. Anticyclones are a more inclusive term (making this the parent article), and are also used for similar systems aloft, where the term high-pressure system is normally just used for a surface high. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all clear on this[edit]

There are different types of cyclones, eg. mid-latitude, polar, tropical, etc. By analogy, are there different types of anticyclones? The same way there are different types of cyclones? I don't think the article is very clear on whether this is true or not. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The categories I'm aware of are warm core (like the subtropical ridge) and cold core (like polar highs). They form by two different processes. Upper highs over warm core cyclones are a third category. That's all I'm aware of. This information will be added into the lead, now that the structure below is in a more organized manner. Thegreatdr (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what on Earth is the first sentence saying? The parenthesis is not informative. The "and with surface systems" is confusing. And "over the part of the planet's surface"? ...that what? Is this the result of a half-completed edit or something? 98.207.245.163 (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence[edit]

Per a request on my talk page, I've tried to make the opening sentence more understandable. Please revert if it's not accurate or in-line with the rest of the page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of wind flow[edit]

The section Structure gives as the cause for wind flowing from high-pressure areas to low-pressure areas "density differences between the two air masses", denser air masses flowing to less dense air. Is that so? I thought it was directly due to the pressure differential, and that also low-density gas under high pressure will tend to expand to areas of high-density gas under low pressure, until the pressures are equalized and the resultant force cancels out. --Lambiam 09:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery of the anticyclone[edit]

Sir Francis Galton first discovered the anticyclone in the 1860's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.249.117 (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anticyclones, which rotate in a counterclockwise direction, occur in the northern latitudes and vice versa. This is the OPPOSITE of what your dictionary says! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.234.31 (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counterclockwise in the Southern hemisphere, Clockwise in the northern hemisphere folks. --✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 09:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking patterns[edit]

Article needs section on iconic/common/reasonably static features of global weather patterns, for example, the Azores High, etc. Crimsone (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge High-pressure area into Anticyclone article[edit]

CLOSED

Reject merging article(s) as per no Consensus to merge reached. Non-Administrative archiving-- GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 03:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A High-Pressure area and an anticyclone are exactly the same thing in Meteorology. Furthermore, both articles have the same structure and links, making them redundant. High-pressure area is just a colloquial term in English, not a real meterological notion and has very few interwiki links because of it.

To convince you, here are the definitions by Eumetcal (http://www.eumetcal.org/resources/ukmeteocal/rapid_cyclo/www/english/glossary/anticyc3.htm):

Anticyclone
(area of high pressure,high)
Region of the atmosphere where the pressures are high relative to those in the surrounding region at the same level. It is represented on a synoptic chart by a system of isobars at a specific level, or of contours at a specific pressure, which enclose relatively high values of pressure or contour height.

and by American Meteorological Society (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Anticyclone):

Anticyclone
An atmospheric anticyclonic circulation, a closed circulation. The wind in an anticyclone is in the clockwise direction in the Northern Hemisphere and counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.
With respect to the relative direction of its rotation, it is the opposite of a cyclone. Because anticyclonic circulation and relative high atmospheric pressure usually coexist, the terms anticyclone and high are used interchangeably in common practice.

Therefore, those should be merged into the Anticyclone article since it is the correct name for this phenomenom.

Pierre cb (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, good idea. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with redirect Roodog2k (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, goodness, yes. -- Beland (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Not quite. Anticyclones are defined by their wind field and high-pressure systems are defined by their pressure fields. They are usually collocated. We had a similar merge discussion between monsoon trough and ITCZ, which can be the same feature, and merger couldn't occur. A similar discussion occurred with the wind gradient and wind shear articles. I oppose to remain consistent across the project. However, if they are merged, the content of the high-pressure area article would take precedence since it is a GA, while anticyclone is a C class article. Only referenced passages from anticyclone could be merged into the high-pressure area article content. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input as that is exactly what I wanted to have on the matter. As for the classification of a merged article, done toward Anticyclone or High-pressure area, I think this is irrelevant as the new article would have to be reevaluted to see if it is a GA or a C article (by the way, I don't see personally why High-pressure area has a GA class). Pierre cb (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High-pressure area is a GA article since it passed successful through the GAN process. Anticyclone never has. We've had mergers like this before where the GA article was dominant and kept its status without further review. Don't know if that should have happened or not, but it has happened. My guess is that if the group agrees to merge, the more common term, high-pressure area would be the name since it is more commonly used than anticyclone, right or wrong. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I've got to say that I disagree with part of this reasoning. Have you examined to what degree content is duplicated? How necessary a merge is? Why do Low-pressure area and Cyclone exist independently? Dustin (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Anticyclones and High-Pressure Areas aren't quite the same thing, just like Cyclones and Low-Pressure Areas aren't too. ABC paulista (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the {{mergeto}} templates from both articles, seeing as there is no agreement to proceed with the merger. As noted above, anticyclones and high pressure areas are conceptually different from each other. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anticyclone. 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/20041031030134/http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/rsd/images/goes8_lg.jpg to http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/rsd/images/goes8_lg.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anticyclone. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 23:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anticyclone. 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/20090225025158/http://www.ofcm.gov/fmh3/pdf/15-app-g.pdf to http://www.ofcm.gov/fmh3/pdf/15-app-g.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: 18 January 2022).

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) 08:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]