Fort Towson

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

Weather: Tropical Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).

For the life of me, I can't find any more info on rapid deepening than the basic NWS definition...although i distinctly remember reading an entire paper on it from the NHC. Can anyone find more info?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningonbrains (talk • contribs)

• I think this is a sign that this article shouldn't exist, and any perntinent information be merged with tropical cyclone. I think about 2 sentences would suffice, if it doesn't already mention thi s phenomenon. TimL 15:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article because it was a requested article. Unless there is a lot of support for the merger of this article, I'd like to keep it. Come fall, when I return to my campus, I will be able to accest meteorology journals, and probably expand this article greatly. Runningonbrains 16:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much nothing should be merged into Tropical cyclone anymore; that article is huge. On a side note, shouldn't it be named Rapid intensification instead? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NWS glossary lists the term as "rapid deepening", so I believe the title is fine. Runningonbrains 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can "rapid deepening" also be applied to non-tropical cyclones that intensify at similar rates? CrazyC83 23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it probably can - however, this phenomenon is much more commonly applied to tropical systems. KyuuA4 08:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, they just bomb. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NHC defined rapid intensification in their 2007 verification report as "a 30 kt increase in maximum winds in a 24 h period, and corresponds to the 5th percentile of all intensity changes in the Atlantic basin," pointing to Kaplan and DeMaria (2003). How should we reflect this in the article? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an NHC report on what is involved in the latter, more extreme case, to differentiate it from the standard concept of rapid deepening? --Chr.K. (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text in question: "Explosive intensification is rather rare, as conditions must be exceedingly favorable for cyclone intensification. Explosive intensification occurs regularly in the West Pacific basin, with the greatest frequency off the north coast of Australia; however, it has occurred numerous times in the Atlantic basin" (emphasis added)

Either Explosive Intensification is rare, or it is not. I'd prefer someone more qualified than I make an appropriate edit, but I don't mind researching this a bit and doing it myself when I have some time. Davidl9999 (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's too much examples in this article. Almost all info here is composed of examples, with only some ones have sources backing it up. I think that we should clean up this article (just like was done in the Fujiwhara effect article), leaving only the most notable examples and expanding the sections about the physics aspects about the phenomenon (similar to Bombogenesis article). ABC paulista (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it - though i do wonder if Bomb and rapid deepening could be merged, since they are the same bar tropical/extratropical.Jason Rees (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this image is actually of Wilma at peak intensity. It might be still Category 5 at the time of that image but it is clearly undergoing an eyewall replacement cycle and it's too long after its initial attainment of Category 5 for that to be its 185 mph peak intensity. So I would suggest either the replacement or removal of that image.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is composed of two (short) paragraphs of information on rapid deepening followed by a long list of "notable instances" that are arbitrarily added. As such, I don't really see the need to for an entire standalone article. Should we merge it with tropical cyclone? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea. Merge to "intensity"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb (Explosive cyclogenesis) might be a better target.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is already mentioned in Explosive cyclogenesis; however, bomb/explosive cyclogenesis is a term reserved for extratropical cyclones. Merging the content to Tropical cyclone#Intensity, Tropical cyclone#Formation, or Tropical cyclogenesis would be better. Of those, I don't have a strong preference, but a merge to explosive cyclogenesis would be meteorologically incorrect. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria already gets a mention here, but what about record-breaking hurricane Irma that was a long track but also rapidly intensifying hurricane at one point. B137 (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Irma was very slow and steady. B137 (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps replace the gif of Maria with a gif of Cyclone Veronica, as I don't see many southern hemisphere storms mentioned outside of their respective articles. Or maybe Typhoon Hagibis of this year, for a slightly more recent storm BananaIAm (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know Jova Is a good example but isn't Otis a better one? Aust4anEmpire (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]